Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

EPSOM AND WALTON DOWNS (REGULATION) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Monday 24 January at Seven o'clock.

CORNWALL COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

HAMPSHIRE BILL [Lords] (By Order)

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

SHREWSBURY AND ATCHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 27 January.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

European Community (Beef and Butter Prices)

Mr. David Marshall: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what, for each of the past four years for which figures are available, was the European Community entry price expressed as a percentage of the third country offer price for beef and butter, respectively, using the definitions and methods of calculation previously used by the European Community Commission.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Peter Walker): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will publish the information in the Official Report.

Mr. Marshall: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, in the latest figures published by the EC, the offer price for beef was one half the EC price and the offer price for butter was one quarter the EC price? Will he also confirm that we are paying £3,000 million more per annum for food than we need to because of our membership of the EC?

Mr. Walker: The logic of the hon. Gentleman's question is that he would destroy British agriculture in

order to buy cheaper goods. That is absurd. The latest figures for the years asked for by the hon. Gentleman show that there has been a decline in the difference between world and EC prices of butter and beef. However, if one starts using world prices they should be calculated on the basis of cheap food imports and the eradication of European agriculture.

Mr. Deakins: Why has the Commission stopped publishing comparisons between offer and entry prices? Is it because it is aware of the burden of the CAP on the British economy—a burden which has not been compensated for by industrial benefits as was promised at the time of Britain's entry?

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman knows that the increase in the CAP budget under the Labour Government was dramatically greater than under this Government. When I took over, the agricultural proportion of the European budget was 80 per cent. It is now 60 per cent.

Following is the information:


Entry price as a percentage of offer price



*Beef
†Butter


1978–79
199
403


1979–80
204
411


1980–81
188
283


1981–82
191
178

Notes: * Guide price as percentage of offer price (guide price—basic levy less duty) based on live animals.

† Threshold price as percentage of offer price (threshold price—levy).

Source: 1978–79 and 1979–80—Agricultural Situation in the Community 1980 Report.

1980–81 and 1981–82—MAFF Estimates on similar basis as far as possible.

European Community (Fisheries Inspectorate)

Mr. Strang: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will report on his inquiries into the reduction of the size of the proposed European Community fisheries inspectorate.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): Mr. Holden, head of the Commission's fisheries enforcement unit, has told my right hon. Friend and has recently confirmed to my officials that the staff resources allocated to him are what he has requested and are adequate for their task.

Mr. Strang: As the conservation of stocks must be the fundamental objective of any common fisheries policy, what confidence can we have in the EC's ability to run such a policy if it is prepared to halve the inspectorate before it gets off the ground? Have the Government reversed those proposed cuts in the inspectorate?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the purpose of the inspectorate. A much larger inspectorate was envisaged when it was thought that it would operate at national as well as international level. With the support of the House, we have successfully negotiated that national enforcement should be our responsibility. Therefore, a relatively smaller task force is needed for international supervision.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, far from the inspectorate being reduced, it


should be substantially increased in view of past well substantiated instances of continental vessels breaking all the agreements and regulations? If the protection fleet is not increased, the fishing community will have an even shorter future than appears at present.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The right hon. Gentleman does not appear to understand the situation. There is no inspectorate at the moment, and that is one of the basic problems. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman does not welcome the inspectorate.

Mr. McQuarrie: I agree with my right hon. Friend's remarks about the additional inspectorate, but, given the national inspectorate and the additional inspectors, can he give an assurance that adequate supervision of British waters will be fully secured?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. I pay tribute to those who work in our protection fleets and aircraft. Recent weeks have shown the effectiveness of their coverage. If there is no adequate supervision at international level, my right hon. Friend and I will press for an increase in resources. However, let us get the inspectorate going, as it is something that we have not had before.

Mr. Buchan: Is the Minister aware that this morning Madame Simone Veil informed the Legal Affairs Committee that the European Parliament had written to the British Government reminding them, in the case of Captain Kent Kirk, that all Members of the European Parliament are entitled to immunities and privileges under the protocols of the treaty? Have the Government yet received that information and have they responded to it? Will the right hon. Gentleman rebuff such an intolerable attempt to interfere in British legal procedures?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Matters speak for themselves. The way in which our protection forces and courts have responded speaks for itself.

Mr. Buchan: With respect, that does not answer the question. Until today the British legal processes spoke for themselves. What will the Government do to reject any attempt to interfere in those legal processes?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman apparently regrets the way in which we dealt with the breaking of our law. If he wishes to ask questions about our processes of law, he should address them to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General.

Agricultural Workers (Earnings)

Miss Maynard: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his latest estimate of the percentage of full-time hired agricultural workers whose weekly earnings are less than £93.

Mr. Peter Walker: It is not possible to give a precise estimate of the number of full-time hired adult agricultural workers earning less than £93 per week. The latest figures from the wages and employment inquiry, which relate to the third quarter of 1982, show that in England and Wales 24 per cent. of such workers earned less than £90 and 31 per cent. less than £95 per week.

Miss Maynard: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that 40 per cent. of farm workers with families of two—that is four out of every 10—earn less than £90 per

week and therefore fall below the poverty line? Does he further accept that that happens in a highly productive and rich industry? As more farm workers than any other groups of workers draw family income supplement, does the Minister agree that that is subsidising the wages bill of rich farmers? Does the right hon. Gentleman further agree that in such circumstances the last pay award of £5 per week was a scandal?

Mr. Walker: I know that the hon. Lady takes an immense interest in this subject. However, perhaps she would bear in mind three basic facts. In the last two years of the Labour Government, agricultural wages fell in real terms compared with 1975. During every year under this Government, agricultural wages have increased in real terms. Perhaps the hon. Lady will recall that, under the Labour Government, between 1975 and 1978 agricultural wages increased by less than £19. Since the Conservative party took office, wages have increased by £45. If the hon. Lady wants to know which Government treated agricultural workers better, she should bear in mind that the gap between agricultural and manufacturing wages has been smaller in every year of this Government than it was during all the years of the Labour Government.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is it not true that farmers' incomes were 40 per cent. higher last year? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, by their efforts, all agricultural workers deserve to be paid wages in the upper quartile of average industrial earnings?

Mr. Walker: If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that agricultural wages should be linked to farm incomes, I must ask him whether when, in previous years, agricultural incomes fell by nearly 50 per cent. and agricultural wages increased in real terms, that process should have been reversed. During this Government's term of office agricultural wages have done better than agricultural and farming incomes.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call two hon. Members from each side to ask supplementary questions.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the figures that he has given refer only to cash incomes and do not include other benefits, such as the housing at less than economic prices which many farm workers rightly receive?

Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. In fairness, one must point out that not all agricultural workers receive the benefits of no or low rents. Of course, for some it is an important factor.

Mr. Farr: My right hon. Friend will recognise that there has been great concern about the purchasing power of the lower-paid agricultural workers. Will he confirm that the purchasing power of an agricultural worker's wages has never been higher than it is today?

Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. I also confirm that in every year of this Government the purchasing power has improved.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that for the past three and a half years he and his Government colleagues have been defending not the wages of farm workers but the conditions in which Mr. Gordiano can pick up a £500,000 a year salary and Mr. Bill Fieldhouse can get a golden handshake of £700,000? That is the society that the Government are protecting. At the same time, they are the people who—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Are they farm workers?

Mr. Skinner: No, Sir.

Mr. Speaker: The question relates to agricultural workers.

Green Pound

Mr. Spence: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has had representations to revalue the green pound; and from which organisations.

Mr. Peter Walker: A number of hon. Members have forwarded to me letters from constituents advocating a revaluation of the green pound, and the Food Manufacturers Federation and Bakery Allied Traders Association wrote jointly to the Ministry in December. I have also had representations from the farmers unions against any revaluation.

Mr. Spence: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he make a forecast? How would a further loss of value in the pound sterling against the European currencies affect British food prices? In particular, how would it affect the pig industry in Yorkshire and elsewhere?

Mr. Walker: There is no doubt that positive MCAs have been of considerable advantage to the pig industry. The negative MCA policy of the Labour Government was a colossal disadvantage to the pig industry. Due to the change in the sterling exchange rate, there are neither positive nor negative MCAs now. If there had been positive MCAs, the Government would have opposed the revaluation of the green pound.

Pig Industry (Intervention Grain)

Mr. Freud: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he intends to seek to channel intervention grain stock to help the pig industry.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My Department and the European Commission have considered such a scheme for animal feed generally, but there are serious doubts about its cost effectiveness. Accordingly, for the present, the Commission has decided against it.

Mr. Freud: I accept the Minister's reply and that which his right hon. Friend gave to the previous question. However, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that British pig farmers have had a pretty thin time during the past few years? Will he agree to meet a deputation of pig fanners before they become a totally extinct species?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman must see the issue in perspective. Although pig farming has gone through a difficult time compared with other areas, there was a certain improvement in profitability last year. However, towards the end of the year things were more difficult, and that is shown in one way or another by the various costing figures. I am, as usual, happy to meet anyone who wishes to make representations. Indeed, I regularly meet members of the National Farmers Union on this issue.

Sir Peter Mills: I do not usually support the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud), but I must ask my right hon. Friend to take this question very seriously. A

thorough investigation might help our stock farmers and, in the long run, given the danger of exports to the Eastern bloc ceasing, cereal farmers as well.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I accept that, but my hon. Friend must remember that the scheme that has been put forward cannot be confined to a single area of livestock production, or it would create distortions. If such a scheme is to be effective, we must ensure that it leads to an increase in consumption and usage. We must be satisfied about that before we can take it further.

Mr. Jay: Is the Minister aware that if the Liberal party had not voted for the European Communities Act 1972, pig producers would now be able to buy their grain for about half the present price?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Yes, but there are many other advantages. One advantage, of which I hope our pig industry will increasingly take advantage, is that the pig farmers are members of the largest consuming market in Europe. There is tremendous scope, especially as pig prices in the United Kingdom are lower than prices in almost every other Community country, to be much more aggressive about exports to the rest of the Community.

Mr. John Townend: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if the present position of the intensive pig industry continues for any length of time, there will inevitably be a substantial reduction in the size of the pig herd? If my right hon. Friend cannot help in this way, will he consider other methods to help the industry?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: There is also considerable scope for the pig industry to help. It is significant that in recent weeks the price of British bacon has fallen, whereas the price of Danish bacon has remained the same. I hope that the industry will take advantage of a much bigger market. The fact that there is such a large differential means that, through the charter bacon scheme and other efforts, we should try to obtain a greater share of our market.

Mr. Buchan: This is a series of intolerable answers. At present we have about 7·5 million tonnes of cereals in intervention in the EC, and last year we spent more than £1 billion on intervention in purchasing cereals in the United Kingdom. Are we saying that we cannot devise a method of getting the cereals to the hard-pressed pig producer? What does the right hon. Gentleman wish to do with this monstrous mountain of cereals—destroy it or make it inedible?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman should reflect on what I said to him previously. We know that there is a surplus of cereals in the Community. Under this system, would he rather have our relatively small surplus or the 50 million tonnes shortage in countries behind the Iron Curtain?

Class A Agricultural Land

Mr. Robert Atkins: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current average value per acre of class A agricultural land with vacant possession in England.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner): The average price of grade 1 agricultural land in England


for the period January to November 1982, based on a sample of approximately 40 per cent. of vacant possession sales, was £2,689 per acre. The corresponding price for grade 2 land was £2,018 per acre.

Mr. Atkins: I am grateful for that reply. Are my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Ministry as worried as I am about the rising price of agricultural land, especially to young farmers trying to get into the industry? What hope can my right hon. Friend offer them?

Mrs. Fenner: My hon. Friend will know that we could not find time for new proposals on landlord and tenant legislation. The decline of the tenanted sector has continued for many years, but it has been accelerated by the legislation that was enacted in 1976 by the Labour Administration.

Mr. Cryer: Did not that legislation give rights to tenant farmers who could not otherwise have afforded to buy the land? Was it not a protection against greedy land speculators and institutions, which were buying and enhancing the value of agricultural land, as the Minister said? Is that not a much more potent factor in the cost of farming today than the trade union members and the farm workers whom the Government always blame for high wages? In fact, we know that farm workers are in the lowest section of wage earners in Britain.

Mrs. Fenner: No. Recent surveys by Savills and Reading university suggest that the influence of the institutions has been exaggerated. It is estimated that in recent times they have bought between 8 and 12 per cent. of farm land put up for sale, but their total holding is only about 2 per cent. of agricultural land in Great Britain.

Mr. Heddle: I should like to revert to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins). Does my hon. Friend agree that generous and realistic facilities are available to young farmers who wish to get on the farming ladder through the Agricultural Credit Corporation? Will she do all that she can to ensure that those facilities are widely advertised?

Mrs. Fenner: I agree with my hon. Friend, but it is important that any amending legislation should improve the prospects for young people who wish to enter farming on their own account.

Mr. Hardy: Does the Minister agree that the position described is a clear manifestation of the consequences of operating a free market economy? How can the young farmer, who may be extremely well equipped to take over a holding, afford land, even with the facility mentioned by the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle)? Does the hon. Lady accept that most would-be young farmers could afford to buy only as much grade 1 agricultural land as would fill a window box?

Mrs. Fenner: I see a bleak future for them if the Labour party proceeds with any idea of nationalising agricultural land.

Horticulture (Support)

Mr. John Wells: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of total agricultural support was given to horticulture in the last year for which complete figures are available; and how this has varied over the previous 10 years.

Mr. Peter Walker: It is not possible to quantify the total support given to horticulture and other sectors of agriculture. I am in close and continuing touch with the industry on ways of helping growers. As my hon. Friend will know, since 1981, £10 million of aid has been given to glasshouse producers, and recently I announced important grants to the orchards sector.

Mr. Wells: Is my right hon. Friend aware that about one third of all the food that we consume and the flowers at which we look are produced by the horticulture industry, whereas the aid given to the horticulture section is much less than 30 per cent. of the total? Will he take steps, first, to congratulate the horticulture industry on standing on its own feet and, secondly, to ensure that, where help is given, it bites quickly?

Mr. Walker: Yes. Horticulture plays a very important part in our food production. From the interest shown by my hon. Friend in this matter, I know that he will recognise the considerable benefit to British horticulture of the Government's support for Food for Britain. The industry will benefit greatly from the marketing initiatives of that new organisation.

Mr. Newens: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the support given to horticulture in Britain compares unfavourably with that given in the Netherlands? His recent decision to wind up the Land Settlement Association in a cavalier manner represents an attitude towards horticulture that does not place sufficient importance on such an important sector of our economy. Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that, for all those reasons, we must have a new attitude and put much more into horticulture, as the Select Committee report said?

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman makes a comparison with Holland, but he knows full well that we have negotiated successfully to bring about, by March, the eradication of the major aid received by the Dutch horticulture industry. As someone who has been very much in contact with what has happened on the LSA estates, I can say that our proposals have been welcomed enthusiastically by the majority of people on those estates.

Mr. Haselhurst: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although we have reduced our dependence on food imports as a whole, there is still scope for further improvement in meeting home demand from our resources in the horticulture sector? Does that not merit reserving a higher proportion of support for horticulture?

Mr. Walker: For the past three years I have been willing to consider suggestions from the horticulture industry, and the Government have acted on many of them. I agree about the domestic market opportunities. There are even wider opportunities for exporting food. Several of our major fruit and vegetable co-operatives, which have embarked upon substantial campaigns in the European Community, have had considerable success in the past 18 months.

Mr. Hudson Davies: The Minister mentioned the glasshouse sector of the industry. Does he recognise the predicament of that sector? If so, what steps does he propose to take, not only in the short term, but in the long term, to assist that sector?

Mr. Walker: We are currently having talks with the leaders of this sector of the industry. Perhaps the most


important area to consider is how the energy and heating arrangements for the glasshouse industry will continue. For example, in conjunction with the National Coal Board, we are studying new systems of heating which would be helpful to the industry.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: I compliment my right hon. Friend on what he has achieved with regard to the heating difference between the Netherlands and Britain. Is he of the opinion that later this year our growers will be competing on equal terms with the Dutch? If not, what further action does he propose?

Mr. Walker: With regard to energy, our growers will be competing on equal terms with the Dutch. We shall watch with close interest to see whether any other changes take place, either here or in Holland, in order to ensure that our people can compete on fair and reasonable terms.

Mr. Mark Hughes: Given that this is a most self-reliant and labour-intensive industry, is it not clear that, faced with the prospect of Spanish and Portuguese and potential Greek competition, the present level of Government and Community support for horticulture in Britain is wholly inadequate?

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman should consider the impact on horticulture of Spain and Portugal. There are areas in which the competition could be increased, but there are other areas of horticultural production in Britain for which those countries will present important new markets.

Marginal Land Areas

Sir Hector Monro: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the newly designated marginal land areas will be likely to be fully integrated into the less favoured areas schemes for the United Kingdom.

Mrs. Fenner: The European Council of Ministers has yet to consider the United Kingdom's proposals for extending our less favoured areas which, as my right hon. Friend told the House last month, were formally submitted to the European Commission on 13 December. It is too early to say when the Council of Ministers will consider our case or what the outcome will be.

Sir Hector Monro: Will my hon. Friend accept that the Government's policies for the less favoured areas have been of enormous assistance to livestock farming? How soon will the maps be available so that farmers can begin to plan for the future?

Mrs. Fenner: I welcome the comments of my hon. Friend in the first part of his supplementary question. Small-scale maps showing the approximate area of marginal land were made available last September, when the discussions opened in Brussels. Maps on the scale of about one inch to the mile are now available for inspection by directly interested parties at selected offices throughout the country.

Mr. Geraint Howells: Will the Minister give an assurance that the Government are committed to giving financial aid to those farmers included in the new marginal scheme now before the EC?

Mrs. Fenner: It was important for us to present the programme and the principle. I have repeated at the

Dispatch Box that there is no Government commitment to finding new funds, but, naturally, it was important to investigate the possibility and place the proposals before the Community.

Mr. Strang: Surely the Minister must recognise that it is a waste of time if the Government will not provide additional money. Is the hon. Lady aware that her noble Friend, the Minister of State in another place, told a deputation this week that the Council of Ministers would not consider the matter until the summer? Will she ensure that there is a decision within the next two months?

Mrs. Fenner: I can only repeat what I have already said. I cannot say exactly when the Commission will place our case before the Council of Ministers or, indeed, when it will consider it.

Tree Species (Climatic Conditions)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what extent the Forestry Commission assesses the possibility of various tree species for differing climatic conditions.

Mrs. Fenner: The Forestry Commission assesses the possibilities of tree species for forestry throughout the range of climatic conditions experienced in Britain. Its assessments are principally made from experimental plantations of promising, mostly exotic species and varieties. The commission has been continuously testing species and varieties in this way since 1922 and currently has over 500 experiments, extending into severe climatic conditions at higher elevation and on exposed coasts and islands. It is internationally recognised as a leading authority on research of this kind and participates in international species trials when these are relevant to British forestry.

Mr. Dalyell: In view of all that expertise, what is the assessment of the cost of a cubic foot of prime timber produced in the area of Stoneyburn, Fauldhouse or Longridge in West Lothian compared with a cubic foot in the saline soils of the Roaring Forties of West Falkland? What are the assessments of the transport costs for taking the timber from the southern hemisphere to the northern hemisphere? In 80 years' time when the trees mature, who is likely to be the owner of that afforestation? [HON.MEMBERS: "Answer"].

Mrs. Fenner: The hon. Gentleman will realise that I should need to have written notice of some of the details of the first part of his question. I can assure him—

Mr. Canavan: The hon. Lady cannot see the wood for the trees.

Mrs. Fenner: I can assure the hon. Member that the cost of establishing trees on the islands to which he referred obviously depends on the size and shape of the woods established, but it is estimated at an average of £1,200 per hectare.

Milk (Co-responsibility Levy)

Mr. Knox: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he intends to have further discussions with the Council of Ministers about the milk co-responsibility levy.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My right hon. Friend has already made it clear to the Agriculture Council this week that he is opposed to the co-responsibility levy.

Mr. Knox: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the levy is costing dairy farmers about £40 million a year? Does he agree that it discriminates strongly against British dairy farmers? Will he and his colleagues try to get rid of it?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Yes. It is bad, not only for dairy farmers, but for consumers. If action is needed in this direction it is much better taken with regard to price rather than through a co-responsibility levy.

Mr. Geraint Howells: Do I take it that the Minister is in favour of co-responsibility but not in favour of the levy?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Co-responsibility can be applied in a number of different ways and if it brings cooperation and non-discrimination, of course it will be considered.

Mr. Latham: Does my right hon. Friend even accept the concept of a European dairy structural surplus when Britain is far from self-sufficient in many dairy-related products?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am glad to say that in recent years our dairy industry has responded well to make the United Kingdom more self-sufficient.

Mr. Deakins: Have not producers any responsibility for the cost of disposing of surpluses, particularly in dairy products and other products? Does the Minister recognise no responsibility to the British taxpayer or the British consumer?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman's question makes me wonder whether he has even examined the way in which the European Community works and whether he has noticed the decline in real terms of the price of milk. Secondly, I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman said about the co-responsibility levy. He would appear to be in favour of that levy rather than in favour of price restraint.

Dairy Cows (Yield)

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the average annual yield of milk from dairy cows in the United Kingdom compared with other European Community countries.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: According to information published by the Milk Marketing Board, the average annual yield in 1981 in the United Kingdom was 4,908 kg per cow. This compares with a figure for all 10 member states of 4,127 kg per cow.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he ensure that no measures are taken at the EC price review that will penalise the advantages of the British milk producers that arise because we produce milk more efficiently?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The figures that I have mentioned show the way in which British dairy farmers have taken advantage of technical improvements and advances in breeding, feeding and so on. They are certainly counted among the most efficient producers in

Europe. I assure my hon. Friend that in the price fixing negotiations we shall endeavour to ensure that there is no discrimination against our efficient industry.

Mr. Ashton: If the British cow industry is so efficient compared with the rest of Europe, why does not the Minister advocate similar subsidies, compulsory planning agreements and protection for the British car industry?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would welcome this, because the way in which the British dairy industry has responded has meant not only that more of our dairy products come from British farms but that a successful export industry has been built up. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that.

Sir Peter Mills: Does my right hon. Friend agree that as yields are so high—and we congratulate British farmers on that—the need for new markets in dairy products is essential? Will my right hon. Friend give even further encouragement to new types of cheeses, such as Lymeswold, so that there may be even greater varieties of cheeses and dairy products at home and for export?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: One of the most encouraging developments in recent years is that, although we still import large quantities of butter, we now export considerable quantities. I support and praise the initiative of such organisations as the Milk Marketing Board and other bodies in developing new products. It means that there is scope for increased markets both at home and abroad.

European Community (Wheat and White Sugar)

Mr. Ernie Ross: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what, for each of the past four years for which figures are available, was the European Community entry price expressed as a percentage of the third country offer price for common wheat and white sugar, respectively, using the definitions and methods of calculation previously used by the European Community Commission.

Mr. Peter Walker: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will publish the information in the Official Report.

Mr. Ross: Does the Minister accept that the last set of published figures showed that the EC price for wheat was 63 per cent. more than the world price, and that for sugar it was 31 per cent. dearer? Does he also accept that Britain pays far more for those goods inside the EC than it would if it were dealing in world markets? Why have the Government stopped publishing the figures?

Mr. Walker: In recent times the price of Community sugar has been well below the world price, so the position varies. It is important to ensure security of supply. During the time that the Government have been in office, farmgate prices have risen not only far less than retail prices in general, but far less than food prices. We have had both stability of prices and security of supply.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend at least accept that we are doing a great deal of damage to some of the poorer countries by dumping substantial surpluses at prices well below those in the Common Market? Does he have any new plans to reduce large structural surpluses in the EC?

Mr. Walker: The messages that I have received from the poorer countries involved in sugar production show


that they are concerned about sugar prices in the Community rising as little as is suggested for the coming year. They receive guaranteed prices for their major exports to the Community.

Following is the information:


Entry price as a percentage of offer price



*Common Wheat
†White Sugar


1978–79
193
276


1979–80
163
131


1980–81
146
84


1981–82
154
138

Notes: * Threshold price as percentage of offer price (cif Rotterdam).

† Target price (in place of threshold price) as percentage of offer price.

Source: 1978–79 and 1979–80—Agricultural Situation in the Community Report.

1980–81 and 1981–82—MAFF Estimates on similar basis as far as possible.

European Community (Butter and Wheat)

Mr. Campbell-Savours: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what have been (a) the increases in the levels of public stocks and (b) the average increases in export restitutions in the third quarter of 1982 compared with the third quarter of 1981 in the European Community for butter and wheat.

Mr. Peter Walker: At the end of the third quarter of 1982 public intervention stocks of butter and wheat were 41,364 tonnes and 1,391,000 tonnes respectively higher than at the same stage in 1981.
Average export refunds for butter at the end of the third quarter of 1982 were 20 ecu per 100 kg higher than in 1981. For wheat the refund was 26 ecu per tonne higher.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is it true that the Commission expects surplus food stocks to rise in 1983 due to a downturn in consumption, itself attributable to escalating unemployment? Why does not the Secretary of State put it to his European colleagues that they should channel less money into support for agriculture and more into support for resolving problems of unemployment, both of which are in structural surplus?

Mr. Walker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Community has only one area in which it is responsible for marketing arrangements, and that is agriculture. If we add together the national investments of all the European countries in helping with the problem of unemployment, and injections into industry and energy and, in Britain, injections into the nationalised industries, we find that the sums are very great.

Mr. Spearing: Will the Minister confirm that about 1½ million tonnes of surplus British grown wheat will be exported in the coming year, and that the export subsidy per tonne will be about £60 to £70?

Mr. Walker: Yes. I am pleased that a country which 10 years ago was a net importer of cereals, by about 10 million tonnes, is now a major exporter of 4 million tonnes.

Temperate Foods

Mr. Iain Mills: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the United Kingdom's present level of self-sufficiency in temperate food that can be produced in the United Kingdom compared with 1972.

Sir David Price: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in ensuring that the United Kingdom is self-sufficient in the production of temperate foodstuffs.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I estimate that we now produce 76 per cent. of all the temperate foodstuffs we consume. In 1972 the figure was only 63 per cent.

Mr. Mills: Does my right hon. Friend agree that much of that improvement has come from the massive achievements in productivity by British farmers? Does he accept that the application of such techniques to nationalised industries and their prices would be of benefit both to British farmers and to other British industries?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I agree with my hon. Friend. Not only have British farmers achieved considerable success, but it has been in the interests of the British economy as a whole, with more than £1 billion of imports saved compared with 1979.

Sir David Price: Does my right hon. Friend agree that achievements have been made not only by British farmers but by the industries that are ancillary to, and help, the farming industry? Does he further agree that if the same level of increase in productivity had been sustained throughout the British economy we would be in a much better position today?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. Not only are 650,000 jobs directly involved in agriculture, but many tens of thousands more are involved in the engineering and building industries and elsewhere. The benefits go widely through the economy.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 20 January.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings, including one with Afghans who are resisting the Soviet occupation. Later today I shall be leaving for an official visit to Yorkshire.

Mr. Taylor: Between those important meetings, will my right hon. Friend have time to consider the implications of strikes in essential monopoly public services, such as the Health Service and the water, gas and electricity industries, where disruption can cause serious health hazards and possible danger to life? Will she consider setting up a Royal Commission, or some other body, to draw up revised and fair terms and conditions of employment that would preclude the right to strike, such as we have for the police and armed services?

The Prime Minister: I note my hon. Friends remarks about a Royal Commission, but "no strike" agreements


tend to be expensive. My hon. Friend mentioned the water industry. There is an agreement in that industry to solve disputes through arbitration, which is binding upon both sides. I understand that the employers and unions are negotiating through ACAS. I hope that the negotiations will be successful and that the threat to strike will be withdrawn.

Mr. Foot: The position in the water industry, with possible strike action, is serious. Will the Prime Minister, as a Government, do everything possible to ensure that the discussions at ACAS are allowed to succeed? Will she, as a Government, ensure that no steps are taken that would injure the possibility of successful negotiations? The unions have wanted that from the beginning, and they want it now. They want fair treatment from the Government.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows that there is a threat to strike. I understand that that is in breach of the agreement, which is to resolve disputes through arbitration. I join him in hoping that the discussions through ACAS will be successful.

Mr. Foot: I would not invite the right hon. Lady to say anything that would make a settlement more difficult—I would not wish to do so. I am sure she will understand that there have been ballots throughout the industry. There is strong support among its workers, who feel that the proper negotiating machinery has been interfered with and that the Government have intervened. Will she encourage the discussions at ACAS to succeed through genuine negotiation? I am sure that a settlement could be reached on that basis.

The Prime Minister: I have already wished the negotiations well, and I repeat that.

Mrs. Faith: Without in any way criticising the tribunal that sat in Liverpool yesterday, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a matter of anxiety that Michael Fagan was released from hospital yesterday without any surveillance? Would she further agree that the Mental Health Act 1959 should be amended so that in future it should be possible for mental health tribunals to impose a supervision order on people leaving hospital, if that is thought to be necessary?

The Prime Minister: I recognise the deep feelings that my hon. Friend has expressed. I understand that the judge who presided in this case made a hospital order without also making a restriction order, which it was open to him to make. The hospital order put the decision on to the medical tribunal. Had the judge made a restriction order as well, the matter could have gone to the Home Secretary. At present we must obey the existing law, which was drawn up in 1959.

Mr. David Steel: Has the Prime Minister seen the report of the Central Statistical Office, published yesterday, which showed that manufacturing output in November was the lowest since the mid-1960s? Is that not a remarkable achievement after four years of her economic policy?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is correct in what he says about manufacturing production. That is, of course, only part of production. The GDP over the same period is considerably up. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the middle 1960s. The index of manufacturing production is at its lowest since 1967. On the same basis, GDP is up 26 per cent. on the 1967 figure.

Viscount Cranborne: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, in seeing this afternoon the survivors of the Logar massacre in which 105 unarmed civilian Afghan people were massacred by Russians, she has earned the gratitude of the Afghan people and struck a blow for the self-determination of that country?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. These people are brave and courageous resistance fighters. We must do everything that we can to support them.

Mr. Alton: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 20 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Alton: Has the Prime Minister had time to consider the case of the 7½-year-old child in my constituency who has become addicted to glue-sniffing? Does the right hon. Lady agree that, in view of the massive increase in solvent abuse, there is a desperate need for new legislation to prevent the sale of such solvents to young people, and to establish centres to help children who become addicted to glue-sniffing?

The Prime Minister: I know of that case and I am aware of how deeply we all feel about it, and how worried we all are that there is an outbreak—if that is the right word—of glue-sniffing in certain areas. The hon. Gentleman will know that it is not easy to stop such action by legislation. I doubt whether legislation would have much effect upon it. He will also be aware that in Liverpool and many other local authority areas voluntary bodies are working with the authorities to tackle solvent misuse and alert youngsters to the dangers so that they may be responsible for their own health. He will also have seen an announcement by the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security to the effect that he is consulting the authorities, retailers and voluntary and statutory bodies to see what they can do to help.

Mr. Best: In view of the interest being shown in Scottish seats by some Opposition Members, does my right Friend agree that that could constitute a good case for devolution, if not outright independence, for Scotland?

The Prime Minister: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the ingenuity of his question. I am sure that whatever happens he will be returned for his seat in Wales.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: During the Prime Minister's busy day, could she take the opportunity to ask for the relevant papers from the European Assembly, which has apparently passed a resolution condemning her and the British Government for saying that we should buy British whenever possible? The British Government representative made an abject apology and said that it was not the policy of the British Government that we should buy British, because that is against Common Market rules. Are we to be told by this bureaucratic "Jenkins" assembly that we cannot ask people to buy British?

The Prime Minister: I feel a good deal of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says. We are free to choose what we buy. I hope that British goods will soon be better than those of any of our competitors. I believe that we should be free to buy British.

Mr. Stanbrook: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 20 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Stanbrook: In view of the legitimate anxiety felt by the people involved, may I ask my right hon. Friend to confirm this afternoon that for the rest of this Parliament the Government will continue to maintain the real value of supplementary pensions and benefits?

The Prime Minister: We have done so until now. I confirm that we shall do so, at least for the rest of this Parliament.

Mr. Faulds: Will the right hon. Lady consider today whether the cost of her electoral trip to the Falklands should be borne by the British taxpayer or whether the charges should more properly be put to Conservative Central Office?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman's question is both small-minded and typical.

Mr. Banks: Is it not a matter for profound regret that the Argentine forces possess Exocet missiles? In the light of the reports of possible Argentine attacks upon the Falkland Islands and dependencies, will my right hon. Friend make it abundantly clear to the Argentine regime that if any attacks were to take place we should have to consider our options for taking retaliatory action in the form of sanctions, or force if necessary?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is correct to raise this matter. Bearing in mind that Argentina has not agreed to the permanent cessation of hostilities, let alone renounced the use of force, the possibility of further attacks has been ever present, and the troops are alert. I hope that if there are further attacks they will be firmly repulsed. If there were attacks we should have to consider very carefully what to do, apart from repulsing them.

Mr. James Hamilton: Will the Prime Minister reflect upon the fact that although five major steel plants have been saved, decimation is taking place in practically every steel town, particularly in Lanarkshire? Will she be mindful also of the mass unemployment in Scotland and tell us that she will change her policies and get people back to work?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is aware that world steel capacity is greatly in excess of world steel demand.—[interruption.] Hon. Gentleman may not like

that. They never do like the facts, but they cannot overcome those facts. Our job is to try to achieve as big a share of the home and export markets as we can. As the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) reminded us a few moments ago, it helps steel output if people buy goods that are made substantially of British steel.

Trading Imbalances

Mr. Latham: asked the Prime Minister what progress has been made during the Christmas Adjournment in correcting unsatisfactory trading imbalances with Japan, Spain and France respectively.

The Prime Minister: During the Christmas Adjournment the Japanese Government announced a number of tariff cuts on items where we have been pressing for reductions. They also said that they would review standards and testing procedures, and we hope that this will produce a relaxation of non-tariff barriers to trade. I told Foreign Minister Abe that changes of this nature were welcome and a positive step, though their impact was likely to be small in relation to the magnitude of the trade imbalance.
In the past six weeks the European Commission has had a number of detailed discussions with Spain. It is to report on the outcome to the Foreign Affairs Council on 24 January.
Community free trade is a treaty right. I believe that our strong representations to the French Government are having some success.

Mr. Latham: I thank my right hon. Friend for that full and firm reply. Does she agree that the grotesque tariff and non-tariff imbalances with those countries have continued for far too long, that we have been far too patient and that, if something is not done soon, we should retaliate in kind?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that the differences are grotesque—in some cases, such as Spain, due to tariff barriers, but in other cases due to non-tariff barriers. Because of this, we were very firm with the European Commission and have taken steps to speed up the negotiations, which were proceeding very slowly, with both Japan and Spain. I believe that our representations have had considerable effect. We shall continue to press them very hard.

Business of the House

Mr. Michael Foot: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 24 JANUARY—Opposition day (5th Allotted Day): There will be a debate on the Adjournment of the House on the regional impact of unemployment. This subject has been chosen by the Liberals.
Motion on the Local Authorities (Appropriate Percentage and Exchequer Contribution) (Repairs Grants for Airey Houses) Order.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at Seven o'clock.
TUESDAY 25 JANUARY AND WEDNESDAY 26 JANUARY—A debate on the report of the Committee under the chairmanship of Lord Franks on the Falkland Islands Review, Cmnd. 8787, on a motion to take note.
At the end on Wednesday, motions on the Valuation (Plant and Machinery) (Scotland) Order and on the Financial Provisions (Northern Ireland) Order.
THURSDAY 27 JANUARY—Proceedings on the Pig Industry Levy Bill. Remaining stages of the Divorce Jurisdiction, Court Fees and Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill and of the Conwy Tunnel (Supplementary Powers) Bill.
FRIDAY 28 JANUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 31 JANUARY—There will be a debate on the fishing industry.

Mr. Foot: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for arranging the debate on the fishing industry that we have been requesting for many weeks and for arranging it at a time next week that we believe is appropriate for the House.
Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to introduce his Budget, if indeed he intends to introduce one?
There is to be a statement today on the Serpell report, but may I make it clear that the Opposition want an urgent debate on the matter because we believe that the sooner that report is strangled by the House the better for all concerned and we are not prepared to see the British transport industry wrecked in the way that other great British industries have been wrecked?
Finally, on the question that I raised with the Prime Minister earlier, I do not ask the right hon. Gentleman to make a statement now, but will he do all in his power to ensure that the negotiations in the water industry succeed? Is he aware that proper negotiations have not taken place, although there have been ballots supporting the claim of the workers and unions in the industry? I hope that he will do all in his power to get proper negotiations going and perhaps arrange for a statement to be made to the House if that would assist the process.

Mr. Biffen: On the last point, I believe that hon. Members on both sides of the House are anxious that the work of ACAS in the water industry dispute will be crowned with success. I note the right hon. Gentleman's anxiety that the House should be kept properly informed of progress.
I note the right hon. Gentleman's comments about the Serpell report. The House will wish to hear the statement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport today. We may then discuss how best to proceed.
I note with gratitude the right hon. Gentleman's comment about the fishing debate. I am sure that all hon. Members hope that this will coincide with the successful resolution of the dispute in the European Community.
Finally, I am pleased to tell the House that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to introduce his Budget on Tuesday 15 March.

Sir Hector Monro: Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 47 signed by 105 Members on both sides of the House relating to restrictions on gliding in Scotland?
[That this House, concerned that there is no independent appeals procedure against Civil Aviation Authority decisions on the introduction of new airways, calls upon the Government not to implement the proposal for an airway between Glasgow-Edinburgh and Aberdeen via Perth until the effect of the airway on gliding at Portmoak and all the other options have been fully explored and debated in public.]
Will he promise that there will be a debate before any further action is taken?

Mr. Biffen: I am afraid that I cannot offer a debate in Government time, although I realise the importance of the matter for a section of the community. Some of those who have signed the motion might try seeking an Adjournment debate so that the matter may be further ventilated.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: When will there be a statement from the Secretary of State for Trade, even if it means summoning him from the House of Lords to the Bar of this House, to explain why he put his own vested interests before the jobs of more than 3,000 Scottish workers in his scandalous decision to allow his junior lackey to overrule the decision of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the Anderson Strathclyde takeover?

Mr. Biffen: As the matter is now before the courts, it is proper that I should reflect an inhibition on that account. If I were not so inhibited, however, I should say that the manner in which the hon. Gentleman raises the matter and the motive that he imputes are thoroughly disgraceful and reflect more on the hon. Gentleman than on his target.

Mr. John Stokes: Will there soon be an opportunity to debate the work of the new Select Committee? In view of reports in the newspapers today, will my right hon. Friend give a clear assurance that the Committee will not be televised by the back door without the full approval of the House first being secured?

Mr. Biffen: The first report from the Liaison Committee, which has just become available to the House, raises many important issues wider even than those touched upon by my hon. Friend. I am sure that the House will wish to consider it very carefully before deciding how to proceed.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: We are to have on Monday a debate on the impact of unemployment in the regions, but, as recent announcements regarding future employment in British Steel and in the British shipbuilding industry involve many thousands of people, will the right


hon. Gentleman consider the prudence of arranging a debate on those two important industries at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. Biffen: I noted the hon. Gentleman's sterling comments last Friday about the proposed steel closures in his constituency. I think that next Monday's debate will give him the opportunity to say indoors what he has already said outside.

Mr. John Farr: As the Franks report, which is to be debated on Tuesday and Wednesday, contains many details, although I welcome the fact that we are to have a two-day debate, will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of suspending the Ten o'clock rule on one of those days so that any hon. Member who wishes to make a contribution may be sure of the opportunity to do so?

Mr. Biffen: I should be obdurate if I said that I would not even consider the possibility of suspending the rule, but I could not ordinarily recommend too nocturnal an approach to the matter. I think that the two days may well prove sufficient.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Will the Leader of the House ask the Minister responsible to make a statement next week about how a man so brilliantly able to break through the toughest and tightest security system in the world and to get into Buckingham Palace twice was found guilty of stealing a car, put into psychiatric custody, appealed to come out on the grounds that he was fit and was told that he was not but won his case at the tribunal, but for which he would still be incarcerated? May we be told who was responsible for keeping him there then, and refusing to release him, because we are now told by an independent tribunal that he should be released because he is fit enough to be out, provided he goes on with treatment? Why was he not allowed out without having to appeal?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman, in an ingenious fashion, makes some trenchant comments on the matter. The Prime Minister answered very comprehensively a few moments ago, and there is nothing that I can add to her reply.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 209 about an allowance for blindness?
[That this House notes with concern that Her Majesty's Government has not introduced an allowance to offset the additional costs occasioned by blindness even after statements by the Prime Minister and successive Ministers with special responsibilities for the disabled have accepted the case presented by organisations of blind persons and given assurances that measures would be taken to introduce an all-purpose disability income when the economy inproves; and now believes that as inflation is now in single figures such an allowance should be introduced as a matter of urgency.]
As is clear from the early-day motion, the Prime Minister and the Ministers responsible for the disabled have accepted the need for a blindness allowance for disabled persons when the economy starts to improve. As inflation is now in single figures, is it not time to have a debate so that we may discuss the possibility of granting a blindness allowance to people who deserve it?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend will have heard me announce that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to present his Budget on 15 March. I should have thought that that occasion and the ensuing Finance Bill would give him the opportunity that he seeks.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: May a considered reply be given to a question of which I gave the right hon. Gentleman's office notice this morning? Could a statement be made on the American intelligence reports of the stationing of two squadrons of M5 extended range Mirage fighter bombers, especially in the light of the Prime Minister's replies which seemed to show that in the event of a bee-sting attack on the Falklands there could be—this is the only interpretation that could be put on it—retaliation on the South American mainland? Should not the matter be cleared up?

Mr. Biffen: I am reluctant to comment on press reports of the character that the hon. Gentleman mentions for reasons that I am sure he will understand. However, I shall certainly ensure that his anxieties are put to my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Defence. I have a feeling that the topic may be touched on in the debate next week.

Mr. Bill Walker: I draw my right hon. Friend's attention again to early-day motion 47. Is he aware that the Civil Aviation Authority has seen fit to ignore the views of the 105 hon. Members who have signed the early-day motion, and that in the absence of an independent appeals procedure, it is exercising dictatorial powers in a most insensitive manner?

Mr. Biffen: I can add little of substance to the reply that I have already given to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). However, I shall of course draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade to the points that have been put to me by my hon. Friends.

Mr. Ioan Evans: In view of the fact that we are to have a two-day debate on the Franks report on the Falkland Islands next week, shall we at the same time have a considered Government statement on what they intend to do to meet the numerous criticisms of the various Government Departments and the failure of co-ordination? Shall we at the same time have a statement about the long-term future of the Falkland Islands, in view of the fact that they have already cost the nation £7 million per family on the island, and leaving aside the financial aspect, the fact that there is the danger of a further military conflict?

Mr. Biffen: I am sure that all the matters raised by the hon. Gentleman will feature in the debate. I do not think that I can go further than that.

Mr. Michael Colvin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there has been no debate in this House on the civil sector of the aerospace industry since the passage of the British Aerospace Act in 1980? The military sector is amply covered in our defence debates, but the civil and space sectors which account for about one third of the output of our aerospace industries are not covered. As important decisions, particularly in the civil sector, are pending, will he allow parliamentary rime for a debate?

Mr. Biffen: I am sure that the record of achievement by civil aviation could be well displayed in any debate that


we had on that subject, and certainly it would reflect the skill and successes of my hon. Friend's constituents. However, it is unlikely that we shall provide Government time for it in the near future.

Mr. John Tilley: Does the Leader of the House remember that on Monday the Home Secretary, in answering questions on the Kensington shooting, said that it would be a good idea to have an early debate on the policing of London? Will he accept my assurance that many London Members, certainly on this side of the House, want an early debate on the police force that is, at least theoretically, directly accountable to this House through the Home Secretary?

Mr. Biffen: I have noted the hon. Gentleman's interest, but I fear that I have to tell him that a debate certainly cannot take place next week.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House ensure that a statement is made about the allocation of the contract for the Falklands housing project, in which a firm, Brewster Associates, managed to get the contract although its tender was for £4·2 million, while the tender from the Hallam Group, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Fletcher), was £3·8 million, in spite of the fact that Brewster Associates had not filed any company returns since 31 December 1979, as shown in the answer that I received this week, and that one of the directors of James Brewster Associates was an ex-diplomat from Argentina? Surely a statement should be made on this sinister matter.

Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of the relevant Minister.

Mr. Bob Cryer: May we at last, after repeated requests, have a debate on disarmament so that we may be given an account of the negotiations which are taking place to find out what progress has been made? As the Leader of the House knows, there have been many protests in the House because many people outside, including the courageous Greenham Common peace women, feel that Parliament has not devoted enough time to this vital issue, and that it is not sufficient to say that this matter can be raised in defence debates. We want to concentrate on the peace issue and disarmament, not on building up nuclear weapons.
Secondly, before Christmas, the Leader of the House said that there was the possibility of a debate on the multi-fibre arrangement, following the statement that was made. May we have that debate, because it is a matter of great importance to the West Yorkshire textile industry?

Mr. Biffen: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I congratulate him on obtaining the Adjournment debate on Tuesday 26 January, which I understand will be devoted

to the United States nuclear bases in the United Kingdom. That is just one way of demonstrating how these topics are often debated on the Floor of the House without using Government time. Of course, I note his concern that there should be a more general debate on these issues, and I have no doubt, taking account of the increasing degree of political interest, that there may well be one.
I shall consider the question of a debate on the multi-fibre arrangement discussions and recent agreement. I have shown some sympathy with the idea of having a debate, but I must confess that no time will be available next week. At this time of the year, things look a bit bleak.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange lessons for junior Foreign Office Ministers as to how to comport themselves when abroad, in view of the fact that on a recent visit to Turkey a junior Minister fell asleep during a meeting and referred to Constantinople instead of Istanbul?

Mr. Biffen: If it comes to lessons in comportment, there are some people whom I might have in mind before junior members of the Foreign Office.

Mr. David Winnick: As in the last election all members of the Government campaigned against any idea of an incomes policy or norm and no person was more vigorous in opposition than the Leader of the House, may we have a statement next week on the 4 per cent. pay limit, which has meant that the water workers have not been able to negotiate freely with their employers? Is it not important to have a statement to justify the present position compared with what was said at the election?

Mr. Biffen: The Government's general economic policy was successfully argued yesterday. I have a sufficient sense of delicacy towards the feelings of the hon. Gentleman that I would not want to arrange such an infliction for next week.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Did the Leader of the House note that in the debate in the House last night the dominating issue was the problems in the international monetary system? Did he note also that only three Labour Back Benchers could be called because of the lack of time? Will the right hon. Gentleman give more time, prior to the Budget Statement, for a full debate on the problems of the international banking system?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that yesterday's debate rested substantially on the issue of international monetary arrangements. That was appropriate, given the significant role that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer plays.
With regard to the difficulty of obtaining the facility for Back-Bench Members to speak, I should have thought that one way of surmounting the problem was by way of shorter speeches.

British Railways (Serpell Report)

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Howell): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement on the Serpell committee on railway finances.
I am publishing today the full reports to me and copies are now available in the Vote Office. The committee was appointed on 5 May last year after the British Railways Board had proposed a review. As the House knows, the committee was chaired by Sir David Serpell, who has held many public offices, including membership of the railways board, for a number of years. The members were Mr. Bond, a member of the board of the Rank Organisation, Mr. Butler, a partner in Peat Marwick Mitchell and Co., and Mr. Goldstein, a leading transport consultant and engineer. Their work was delivered to me immediately before Christmas, as I informed the House on 23 December, and copies were sent forthwith to Sir Peter Parker. There is a majority report by Sir David Serpell, Mr. Bond and Mr. Butler and a minority report by Mr. Goldstein.
The committee was asked to examine and report on the shorter-term financial prospects of the railway and on the options for many years ahead. The majority document fully reflects this. The minority document by Mr. Goldstein gives more attention specifically to the longer term, and places a different emphasis on certain aspects.
The Government are grateful to the committee for its hard work and speedy efforts. The reports explore the broadest range of issues about our railways of any inquiry since nationalisation. I should particularly like to take this occasion to pay tribute to Sir David Serpell, who has discharged a most difficult task with great ability and integrity.
The railway serves many customers and communities, but it also requires major support from public funds, which this year will exceed £900 million. There has been growing concern about the state of the railways, their cost and their future. These reports now give us a basis for decisions and for action.
The committee does not support the view that yet larger injections of public funds are needed to preclude extensive closures, or that large parts of the system are at risk from lack of maintenance with present levels of support. No major backlog of renewals was demonstrated to the committee's satisfaction. Nor did the committee accept the case for what it called "a high investment option", although it recognised the need for some changes in existing investment priorities and for possible increased investment in the late 1980s. Nor do the reports recommend huge rises in commuter fares, as some wild speculation has suggested. The best way to keep fares down is by cutting costs; the reports point to large scope for that. Nor do they suggest that safety should or would be prejudiced.
The committee has given close attention to the opportunities for considerable improvements in efficiency and the reduction of costs over the next five years. It has drawn attention to particular areas where present shortcomings need to be remedied.
I welcome the efforts by Sir Peter Parker and his board to improve their management arrangements, to reduce costs and to get rid of restrictive practices. The reports now published point to further large scope for improvements in

efficiency. I have made it clear to the British Rail chairman that I regard these improvements as the top priority for action flowing from the committee's reports, and I remain confident that they can be achieved. Vigorous and immediate action by the board will have my full support.
The committee has not made recommendations about closures or the longer-term shape of the railways, but it has set out broad illustrative options for consideration. It would be quite wrong to respond with snap judgments or closed minds to any of these ranges of options, whether they concern track and signalling, rolling stock, network size or fare structure, or new objectives for the railways board. The committee makes it clear that more work would be needed to be done to translate any of these illustrations into policy options. Indeed, it would be foolish to come to settled conclusions on any one of these questions in isolation. Other questions—such as the relationship between road and rail services and subsidies for public transport generally, the introduction of private capital and the relationship between British Rail and the private sector—also remain to be determined.
The public have the right to know more clearly what value for money they are getting from their railway services and how funds for public transport can best be used. We now have the opportunity for informed discussion about the sort of railway that we want and are prepared to pay for. It is on this basis that the Government now propose to reach lasting decisions that will be in the best interests of the nation.

Mr. Albert Booth: Does the Secretary of State realise that most of those who have studied the network options A and B in the report, for a so-called commercial railway, have been absolutely appalled to find that an 84 per cent. cut in our railway network is involved and, if implemented, would leave no lines operating in Scotland north of Edinburgh or Glasgow, no eastern main line beyond Newcastle, no lines in Wales beyond Cardiff and no lines whatsoever in the west country? The Secretary of State said that the committee did not accept the case for a high investment option, but will he concede that the committee did not even examine the proposals for main line electrification? It did not consider British Rail's proposed investment programme. Does that not show the most horrendous anti-rail bias on the part of the committee?
When the Secretary of State said that the report did not propose fare increases, I wondered whether he had read the chapter that refers to an option for substantial real increases in fares in London and the south-east. Has he looked at the amount that the report suggests might be saved? The figure is about £55 million, which implies an increase in fares of about 40 per cent. The report suggests that acceptance of its options would lead to congestion, which is a contradiction of the aims that we thought were intended for the running of a modern railway service.
Chapter 6, which refers to the writings of Travers Morgan, carries a clear implication that the safety standards of British Rail are too high and suggests that savings might be made by curtailing track and equipment maintenance that is currently considered essential for the high standard and safety of British Rail. Is that not absolutely disgraceful?
I have serious doubts about the propriety of paying more than £500,000 to consultants in which members of


the committee had a direct financial interest. This report appears to show blatant disregard for the needs of passengers. It uses a financial criterion that bears no comparison with that used by any other national railway system. All it does is waste time and delay critical decisions that need to be taken to maintain our railway service. As such it should be totally rejected.

Mr. Howell: The right hon. Gentleman, in his indignant condemnation of a substantial report—I do not believe that he can possibly have studied it fully and thoroughly—overlooks the fact that it was the British Railways Board that eagerly sought this review and welcomed the setting up of the committee. Now that the committee has come to several conclusions that the right hon. Gentleman does not immediately accept, it would be sensible if he were to examine and evaluate them rather than jump up and condemn the whole thing out of hand.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the network options. I have already said that they are illustrations. Neither I nor the Government wish to see substantial closures. If that policy were changed, it would be after a long and informed debate. That remains our policy.
There is a statutory procedure for closures which is endorsed and reinforced in this report. The right hon. Gentleman does himself no justice by shutting his mind to any consideration of the value for money to be obtained from different sizes for the rail network.
Electrification investment depends upon the ability of British Rail to bring forward proposals on how it can put its inter-city business into profit. I believe that it is intending to bring forward those proposals quite soon. I look forward to receiving them.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about anti-rail bias. When the committee was set up, its chairmanship and the committee members were welcomed by British Rail. That undermines what he has said on that matter. This report does not confirm the speculation, which was given a good run by Opposition Members, of a 40 per cent. increase in commuter fares. In looking at the structure of fares, it is necessary to examine the suggestions on the size of the discount. There is no mention of 40 per cent. in the report. Nor is there any suggestion that safety would be prejudiced.
As to the appointment of the consultants, I and my Department chose Mr. Goldstein and Mr. Butler and their consultant firms in line with proper procedures.
Travers Morgan has made studies of railways throughout the world, including British Rail. It is a very substantial and reputable firm. For the right hon. Gentleman, because he does not like the immediate conclusions and because they do not confirm his prejudices, to try to undermine the committee and the consultants to the committee is a transparent and feeble reaction. I hope that he will give a more open-minded approach to a very full and substantial report.

Mr. Booth: The Secretary of State should acknowledge that British Rail has said that the reports are a disappointment to it. In its view, the committee has reflected its inability to agree on important issues. British Rail stated that the report contains unreliable information. It makes few specific recommendations. BR has said that

the report mixes procedural matters with policy, and that little attention is paid to the need to maintain momentum behind the current initiatives.
Can the Secretary of State confirm that that is what British Rail has said? if so, how can he suggest that this is regarded by those currently responsible for running British Rail as making any sensible contribution to the important debate that should be taking place on maintaining and sustaining the railway system?

Mr. Howell: British Rail has indicated to me that it sees constructive aspects in this report and it wishes to build upon them. It is true that it has expressed disappointment. There are criticisms in both the majority and minority reports. British Rail has a perfect right to challenge and to meet those criticisms. I do not think that there is any indication that British Rail is taking the oyster-minded approach of the right hon. Gentleman and closing its mind to the challenges in these reports. This report shows that there are substantial opportunities for cost savings, thereby building on the spirited efforts that Sir Peter Parker and the board have made in trying to overcome some of the absurd restrictive practices and poor customer service in the industry. British Rail is ready to take those opportunities, obtain the cost savings and run a high quality modern railway on the basis set out in the report.

Sir David Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the snapshot judgment he condemns becomes inevitable if a report is dribbled and leaked to the press and the media in the way that this report has been? Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us on the Transport Select Committee were the last people to receive the report, although it was being discussed throughout the media? Does he accept that the main conclusion of the report is along the lines that the committee thinks that British Rail can improve its efficiency and reduce costs while keeping the railway
at broadly its present size.
Is he aware that practically none of the leaks suggested that?

Mr. Howell: My right hon. Friend is entirely right. That is the most important conclusion. I deplore the great deal of speculation. As soon as I received the manuscript of the report, I reported that fact to the House. The printers have been working on producing a report of 200 pages, 19 maps and many diagrams since that time so that hon. Members might have copies of the report and the supporting material.
In the meantime, it is true to say that there has been some highly selective speculation—that is to be deplored—including putting out "facts" that were not facts at all and giving a totally false perspective. Now that the entire report and supporting documents are available, it will be wise and prudent for those who are interested in the future of a modern railway to study what is of value in this report and to look at it in a balanced and critical way.

Mr. Gordon A. T. Bagier: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this report is almost in line with the Beeching report in as much as it will create tremendous alarm throughout the transport industry? Will he give an undertaking, either now or in debate, that a large part of this report will be consigned to the dustbin? Will he concede that the six options as to the size and scale


of the railway that will remain will mean that in the northern region nothing can travel east to west on British Rail north of Leeds and south of Edinburgh? All six options in the report suggest a direct distinction and separation between east and west.
Will the right hon. Gentleman also take this opportunity to say that he does not accept the recommendations that are designed to destroy British Rail Engineering Ltd? Some of us have had a very short time to look at this report. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that British Rail's policy is to buy British, so that the purchase of 100 per cent. of rails from the British Steel Corporation will continue? That is criticised in the report. Will he turn that down at once? Does he accept that many of us believe that this report reads more like Hans Christian Andersen? It is not a serious report. Will he consign it to the dustbin?

Mr. Howell: I do not think there is any comparison between this report and the work of Dr. Beeching. The report covers a wider area. It is concerned with the cost and structure of the railway. The report also puts forward a number of illustrative options of what the public is getting in the way of value for money in transport services in the railway system. I do not think that it compares with the Beeching report at all. The hon. Member said "Put it in the dustbin". One of his hon. Friends yesterday said "Burn it." That does no credit to the hon. Gentleman. When he studies the report, he will see that it contains information and illustrations that are of importance and value. Let them be tested against the views of British Rail. As a railwayman, the hon. Gentleman will see that there is information of considerable value for building a better future for the railways.
The future structure of British Rail Engineering Ltd is considered in the report. The aim of the report is to identify ways in which the capacity of British Rail Engineering Ltd. to build railway equipment can be preserved and made competitive. It looks at the different relationships that might be developed between BREL and British Rail to achieve that aim. If the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends are really interested in the future of British Rail's engineering capacity and in the competitive supply of equipment, both at home and abroad, I should have thought that they would be interested in these opportunities and would support discussions to see how they could help BREL.
I very much hope that British is best, that British equipment will be competitive and will be supplied to our railway system. That is what we all want to see. The best way of achieving that is to ensure that BREL has a proper structure and is highly competitive. The report puts forward a number of options on how that might be achieved.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the report contains no comparisons with other countries and is short on recognition of safety standards and on replacement and transition costs? Does he also agree that Serpell seems to assume that the present recession will continue ad infinitum? I agree that a debate will have to take place on this detailed report, but will the Secretary of State ease the purse strings of British Rail so that it can at least place some orders for badly needed replacement rolling stock? Will he also look at map C2 and say who will take the train to Crianlarich?

Mr. Howell: As I told the House yesterday, the £960 million external financing limit for 1983–84 allows for an increase in British Rail's investment projects. A number of projects are in the pipeline, including some for new forms of rolling stock.
The Government have always said that they look with sympathy at the financing of transitional costs to meet the problems of adapting a great service and industry to future needs. That has been reflected not merely in words but in action and money as well during the last two years when transitional costs have been met.
It is true that the report looks at our system and needs and does not go too far into international comparisons. Those can vary from countries that run their systems at a huge loss to others that are desperately trying to cut the loss and those that run relatively economic systems. We must choose what is best for us, what we can afford and how we can best achieve it. The report helps us along that road.

Dr. Brian Mawhinney: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that, despite the fact that he told the committee that it need not concern itself with electrification, it has commented negatively on the prospect of main line electrification, particularly the east coast main line, in paragraph 8.14? I accept that British Rail must recover from the disastrous strikes of last year, cut its costs and become more efficient, but does my right hon. Friend accept that if he were influenced by that paragraph his decision would be viewed with disquiet by a number of his hon. Friends?

Mr. Howell: That paragraph shows that decisions about electrification, including the immediate proposition for east coast main line electrification, turn on the board's capacity to put its inter-city business into profit. The board will bring those figures forward shortly and I look forward to receiving them. It is on that basis—this is in no way altered by the Serpell report—that we shall reach decisions on the worthwhileness and timing of further electrification projects.
The report looks back a long way and looks forward a long way. It requires a more sober and balanced reaction than we had from the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) this afternoon.

Mr. Les Huckfield: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the conclusions in the report are far worse than anything recommended by Dr. Beeching, because at least even Beeching recommended that there ought to be a basic rail network? Does he also accept that, because of his refusal to condemn those parts of the report that refer to the network, many parts of the country will now be wondering whether under the Conservative party they will have railway services in the future?
Even if the right hon. Gentleman will not condemn those parts of the report that refer to the route network, will he condemn those parts of chapter 6 that specifically say that safety standards in track maintenance and signalling ought to be reduced?

Mr. Howell: I do not accept that this report is comparable with the Beeching report. The hon. Gentleman is asking me to dismiss information that is valuable both to British Rail and the tax-paying and travelling public about how best we develop the railways. I have frequently said that the Government do not wish to


see substantial closures. If, as a result of a long-term review, a different policy were necessary, the House would be informed of the Government's views and would wish to debate them.
I do not accept that there should be any prejudicing of proper safety standards, so long as the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness does not use safety arguments to justify unnecessarily high costs. I know that he wants as much as I do to see a tight-cost, safe and efficient railway.

Mr. Roger Moate: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) has used selective quotations for the purpose of scaremongering to an extent that almost verges on dishonesty? By suggesting that the report urges wholesale closure, is not the right hon. Gentleman quoting directly contrary to the principal conclusion in the main report that, given greater efficiency and reduced costs, the railways can be maintained at broadly their present size without any increase in subsidy in real terms? Will my right hon. Friend therefore give the lie to the suggestion that either the report or the Government are in favour of major cuts in the present size of the network?

Mr. Howell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The reaction of the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness was below his usual standard. He knows that the report contains a number of valuable conclusions. My hon. Friend has reminded us that the conclusion in the majority report is that, with the railway system broadly in its present shape, substantial savings could be achieved over and above those on which British Rail is now working.
I have made it clear that the Government do not want to see a substantial number of closures. If there were to be a change in that policy, it would be after informed debate. That debate will be more informed as a result of this report, and any decision will be debated in the House and declared before the House. That is the Government's position and I am sure that it is the right one.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that at Question Time yesterday the House was alarmed because this report was not before it. The right hon. Gentleman knew then that he would be making this statement today, yet hon. Members did not receive the report until 2.30 pm. Surely that is an abuse of the House.
The right hon. Gentleman has read and studied the report. Is he prepared to say, given that his knowledge of the report is greater than that of hon. Members, that he will oppose the proposals and options on the removal of subsidies on the inter-city lines? Will he remove the electrification and safety options? Indeed, is he prepared to remove the option on buying British? Will he also state whether he will uphold the principle of a fully developed and invested rail system as part of an intergrated transport system in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Howell: I am prepared to enter into debate with the hon. Gentleman and any others on sensible measures, consistent with the nation's resources, to support and develop a modern and highly efficient railway system. As part of that, unlike the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness, I am prepared to look at new facts and illustrations—including the engineering costs, which have

never before been examined except by the railway industry itself. Those figures are now available to the public. I am to consider where investment priorities can be switched for the greater benefit of passengers and customers—who also come into the equation—and the railway system. That is what I am prepared to do.
I resent the hon. Gentleman's remarks about abuse of the House, because I have taken the greatest care to ensure that the full report, with all the maps, all the details and all the diagrams, is available to all hon. Members. I do not accept his remarks about abuse of the House.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does the Secretary of State accept that this is a thoroughly negative report and that in putting forward six options it creates maximum uncertainty, which must have an effect on the economic regeneration of the areas affected? Does he further accept that by saying that he will consider all six options he is adding to the uncertainty and that in areas such as Wales, where with three of the six options we would have nothing but a transport desert, grave difficulty will arise for those who are trying to overcome the unemployment problem?

Mr. Howell: In putting forward illustrative options the report tells us the value that we are getting for the money being spent on a number of railway and transport services. Although I have said that it is the Government's view that we do not want to see substantial closures and that a change of policy would follow only after the most intense and careful debate, the hon. Gentleman owes it to his constituents, the transport services, and the transport standards that his constituents want, to try to find out whether they are getting the right value for money from the considerable expenditure that is involved in some of the lines described in the report. His constituents will expect that of him. Far from condemning it or merely saying that it should not be considered, he ought to set out his views on some of the facts in the report. I should welcome them.

Mr. Harry Cowans: Will the Secretary of State do the honourable thing and withdraw his allegation yesterday at Question Time that right hon. and hon. Members of the Opposition were indulging in scaremongering? Is he not aware that the cat is now out of the bag and that many of the points made by my right hon. and hon. Friends are included in the options in the report? Is he not further aware that in the north, in Scotland and in Wales the rail communications system is being decimated? Is he further aware that the option put forward to buy steel for track on the Continent flies directly against what the Prime Minister has argued about people buying British? Is this not nonsense in anybody's terms?

Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman has again alleged that what is included in the report, and what his hon. Friends were saying was included in the report, are firm recommendations, including a statement that there would be a 40 per cent. increase in commuter fares. I know the hon. Member studies these things very carefully. I hope he will take the opportunity to read the report in full. If he does, he will see that these are not firm recommendations. They are illustrative options to show where the money is going. He would be the first to say that we should have value for money and good, integrated transport systems. The options deserve study and we


should not close our minds to any changes in the structure and pattern of our railway system. That is not a constructive approach. I do not believe that in his heart of hearts it is one that he wants either.

Mr. Alex Pollock: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, notwithstanding the options outlined in the report, there is no foreseeable threat to the future of the Aberdeen-Inverness line, which is so important to the communities in the north-east of Scotland?

Mr. Howell: The Serpell report considers a number of illustrative options. My hon. Friend will have to take it from me that it is not the Government's wish to see substantial closures in the railway system. I cannot stand here, and I never have sought to do so, and guarantee the future of the entire system for all time.—[26 January, c. 916.] No Transport Secretary has undertaken that and I would not seek to do so.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: Is the Secretary of State aware that the more constructive part of the Serpell report has been canvassed for many years in the House by many hon. Members, particularly as it affects London? Of course, successive Governments have not implemented the proposals. Has the Secretary of State any comments on paragraph 6 of the section on the longer-term options, where there is full support for subsidies for London commuters? Will he remember that in the Transport Bill which is now in Standing Committee he is not proposing to pursue that policy'? Will he tell us that he is prepared to take that paragraph out of Serpell and make sure that there are adequate subsidies for commuters in London?

Mr. Howell: I think that the hon. Member is confused about the Government's attitude towards subsidies for transport, and certainly London Transport. This year London is receiving a larger share of national taxpayers' support for transport than ever before, and very substantial levels of subsidy support for London's transport system are fully supported by the Government. In the Serpell report the question is raised of the level of subsidies. In one paragraph it is made clear that the subsidies are well worth while because they prevent totally unacceptable and antisocial congestion on the roads, so that is a sensible policy.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose exceptionally to call five more hon. Members from either side, which will give much more time on this statement than on others.

Mr. David Mudd: Can my right hon. Friend give me a simple message of encouragement and reassurance that I may take back to Cornwall? For the last 20 years, whenever there has been a hint of a rail closure in Cornwall, we have seen hotels and guest houses converted to old peoples' homes and private nursing homes, with a loss of tourist capacity. Industrialists who had expressed an interest in coming to Cornwall decided that it was not for them. There are six options in Serpell, and three of them ignore Cornwall. In the remaining three there is the total elimination of the economically vital and socially relevant Falmouth to Truro branch line. What will the Secretary of State tell me to say to my constituents about this?

Mr. Howell: My hon. Friend can take one comment from me and a comment of comfort from the Serpell

report. First, as I have already said a number of times, it is not the Government's wish to see substantial closures in the network. I have made that absolutely clear. Second, the Serpell report, by illuminating some of the expenditure on railways, indicates ways in which better transport facilities can be brought to rural and outlying areas by the better expenditure of funds and a more imaginative development of the transport system than Opposition Members are prepared to acknowledge. That will be for the benefit of my hon. Friend's constituents and is a message worth taking to them.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Is it possible to make a reasonable assessment of what the level of subsidy to British Rail should be, without international comparisons, when every other major country gives subsidies to its railways which are far in excess of ours? Is it not absurd that in the chapter on British Rail Engineering Ltd. the Serpell committee should have examined and rejected the desire of British Rail to keep BREL going on the basis that there is no alternative information about its productivity and its capacity to make profits? It states specifically that the information is not available, yet it goes on to suggest that it might be privatised as one of the options.

Mr. Howell: On the second point, the committee considered a number of options, of which privatisation is one, and putting it much closer to British Rail is another. The committee's basic concern—as it is mine and would, I hope, be that of the hon. Gentleman with his constituency interest—is to see that the capacity, competitiveness and effectiveness of British Rail Engineering, with regard to both engineering maintenance and railway building, are maintained. That is a common concern and one to which options such as these address themselves.
As to international comparisons, it is not true that every country subsidises its railways to a much larger extent than we do. To take one example to do with urban systems, we are often told that we have a low subsidy for the London transport system, but the subsidy for the greater Tokyo rail system is only 5 per cent., which is infinitely smaller than anything here. Many countries have different circumstances and many are seeking to reduce their railway deficits. We have to be sensible and confident and choose the levels that we want for our railway system. That is the right starting point.

Mr. Matthew Parris: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a distinction between a constructive attitude to rail transport on the one hand and a sentimental attitude to every current aspect of British Rail practice on the other? If this report directs our minds to that distinction, it will have done a service.

Mr. Howell: Yes. I agree with my hon. Friend. I agree with his point, without in any way condemning it, about a sentimental attitude. We are dealing, in many cases, with part of our heritage which is of great beauty and value. The rights of way on which railways run are precious. All these matters should be considered in developing a system that meets our future service needs as well as preserving important parts of our heritage.

Mr. Peter Snape: Will the Secretary of State accept that the network options, including the 1,600 miles of railway that will be left under option A, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) referred, appear in chapter


14 of the report, that the reduction in safety standards of signalling appears in chapter 6, paragraph 25, that the proposals to dismember British Rail Engineering Ltd. appear in chapter 7, paragraph 30, and that the real increase in commuter fares, which he has denied, appears in chapter 2, paragraph 22, of the majority report? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that an even greater increase is projected in chapter 3, paragraph 40, of the minority report? Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the only speculation in which I am prepared to indulge, and in which I have indulged over the past fortnight, is the date of his resignation before he does any more damage to the railways?

Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman told me yesterday that there were a number of proposals in the report. In the areas that he mentioned, they are not proposals, but options. The hon. Gentleman talked of a 40 per cent. increase in commuter fares, which proves to be wholly incorrect. The implication that there were firm recommendations—the hon. Gentleman said, I think, that these were for the winding up and selling of BREL—is wrong. It was wrong yesterday. It is wrong today.

Sir Hector Monro: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there will inevitably be grave concern when some of these railway maps are published tomorrow? Will he go some way to allay these fears by saying today that some of the extreme options are not acceptable and, if possible, that the route mileage in Scotland will be largely maintained?

Mr. Howell: I believe that the extreme options are not acceptable. They are there as a valuable framework for us to consider the future. They are not part of the area where we must apply our minds seriously to the future of the railway system. I have already described the Government's broad stance on particular parts of the network. If that were to change, it would be on the basis of informed policy and of debate in the House and on agreement of the best value for money that can be obtained through spending taxpayers' money on transport. That is how we shall proceed. I hope that my hon. Friend will be reassured by my remarks.

Mr. David Stoddart: If the Secretary of State thinks that my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) was scathing about the report, he should have heard his hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) describing the report on the "World at One". That really was scathing. Instead of congratulating Sir David Serpell, does the right hon. Gentleman not consider that the report is notable only for its incoherence? Does he agree that it is a report that few people will understand?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I understand perfectly well that the Serpell recommendations, if accepted, will undermine our railway network and that they have already caused fear and uncertainy among railway men and rail employees throughout the country? Does he appreciate that if the recommendation that British Rail Engineering Ltd. be privatised were brought into operation, it would be a complete disaster for passengers, for British Rail and for safety standards throughout the railway system?

Mr. Howell: To take the hon. Gentleman's first point, even my hon. Friends can sometimes be wrong or a little premature in their judgment. I do not consider that the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness was very scathing. The right hon. Gentleman simply displayed a closed mind, because he was not prepared to examine the work that has gone into the report and the options available in trying to see how best the railway system can be developed. The hon. Gentleman falls into the trap of saying that the report contains recommendations. I urge him to read it. He will find much of value. He will see that much of the report is aimed at options and ways in which railway engineering and building capacity can be made more competitive and adaptable. The danger is that if the railways do not adapt they will die. That is the spirit in which the report draws attention to these matters.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: As my right hon. Friend wants hon. Members to understand the documents that he has laid before the House, will he say why the important passenger flow diagram in the supplementary volume does not show the route between London and Exeter as an inter-city route, which it is, but shows the route as far as Salisbury as London and the south-east, when Salisbury has nothing to do with the south-east? Will he explain why the brown colour code for freight does not appear anywhere, and why some of the lines are coloured black, although there is no black colour code? Are these printers' errors? Or are they errors by the consultants?

Mr. Howell: The definitions by British Rail as to which parts of its rail system are inter-city and which lie within London and the south-east are for British Rail itself to determine. I share with my hon. Friend recognition of the fact that they change from time to time and that they are difficult to follow. If there are any particular aspects of the maps, diagrams or engineering work on which he would like special guidance and help, I shall be glad to give it to him personally or, preferably, to direct him to officials and engineering experts who can equal his own engineering expertise in this matter.

Mr. Derek Foster: Is the Secretary of State aware that, with the levels of investment envisaged in the report, it may be difficult to see the survival of British Rail Engineering Ltd. either in the public sector or in the private sector? Is he aware that he may be envisaging the destruction of railway communities far beyond what has hitherto been conceived? Far from the home market being a home base on which to export railway equipment, we may be running the risk of importing great amounts of rail equipment.

Mr. Howell: I realise the hon. Gentleman's particular worry about the capacity of British Rail Engineering Ltd. and the need for orders. The report expresses its view that in the second half of the 1980s there will need to be increased investment in rolling stocks and traction equipment. That is right. Overall, we now live in an age in which it is clear that the very high levels of investment historically in the railways will probably not be maintained and that world-wide it will be necessary to look for new markets for our railway equipment. I have sought to support British Rail Engineering Ltd. and other railway equipment firms in finding those markets around the world. I shall continue to make every effort to do so, but


we must be realistic. We must not imagine that we can always maintain markets simply by spending on one project resources for which there might be a greater need elsewhere.

Mr. David Crouch: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his calming words of assurance that the possible rise in fares will be minimal will be heard with a sigh of relief throughout the country? May I draw his attention to paragraph 2.22 of the main report, which refers to the fares paid by London and south-east passengers—1 million a day—who are British Rail's best and most regular customers? Most of them pay their fares well in advance by purchasing a yearly season ticket. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the report suggests that these passengers should be subject to a substantial, real increase in fares? Will he bear in mind that he needs to give a real assurance to the public that this real and substantial increase will not take place? Will he take note of Mr. Goldstein's strong reservations in paragraph 6.04 of his report, where he points to the dangerous side effects of so increasing fares?

Mr. Howell: My hon. Friend is correct, and I have already referred to those in answer to earlier questions. In turn, I call his attention to paragraph 3.42 of the minority report, where Mr. Goldstein is reported as saying:
While therefore there is certainly opportunity for major financial improvements in BR by radical pricing changes in the L &amp; SE sector, it would in my view be wrong to go forward with other than modest increases without undertaking a very far reaching examination.
The caution concerned about jacking up fares as the way to solve the financial problems is right. As I said in my statement, much the best way to control fares to keep down costs, and there is plenty of scope in the report for that.

Mr. Michael Martin: I wish to reiterate my fears about the circumstances of Glasgow, Springburn. It is worth repeating that there is over 30 per cent. unemployment in my constituency and there are only two main employers—the Eastfield railway locomotive depot and the British Rail engineering workshop, which is the only workshop in Scotland. If anything happens to those two employers, will the Minister come to every school in my constituency and tell our children that there is no future left for them in the north end of Glasgow?

Mr. Howell: For two days running the hon. Gentleman has fairly expressed his fears about the local works with which he is concerned. I have said that the aim of the committee was to consider options and ways in which British Rail's engineering and railway equipment building capacities could be made more competitive and thereby beget more business. That must be the desirable aim that I hope the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) would share.
However, it was known long before the report emerged that there were problems with the capacity and the orders for British Rail Engineering Ltd. The British Rail management has been struggling with these formidable problems, which have been made no more easy or difficult by the production of a report. Those problems will have to be dealt with, but I understand the hon. Gentleman's worries. As I said yesterday, the social as well as the economic implications must be taken into account.

Later—

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance. In the ordinary course of

events, when reports are given to Parliament it is accepted that they are subject to the Government chief accountant's rules. In the case of the Serpell report, it is clear that the money received by two firms in which two members of the committee, Mr. Alfred Goldstein and Mr. P. J. Butler, have a direct interest was paid contrary to those rules.
On page 3 of the rules it says:
a candidate firm"—
this is for consultancies—
will be ruled out, without detailed consideration, if either"—
and there is a list of qualifications—
there is a clash, or potential clash, of interest that would result from its appointment.
I should have thought that it was incumbent on the Minister to state to the House—because this is a matter for the Public Accounts Committee subsequently—whether there is any breach or potential breach of the rules, as there clearly is in the payments to these two people from firms in which they have a clear and direct interest.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I ask you to give a ruling that on this and future occasions any doubts should be clearly stated by the Minister making a statement on a report.

Mr. Speaker: I shall see whether there is any responsibility on my part in this regard, although I doubt it very much.

Mr. Christopher Price: I am sorry that I have not been able to give you notice of this matter, Mr. Speaker, but it relates to the answer to a question that I received only at 3.30 this afternoon. It concerns the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer).
In spite of not having been able to give you notice earlier, Mr. Speaker, I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the clear breach of the Government chief accountant's guidelines in the appointment of R. Travers Morgan and Peat, Marwick, Mitchell &amp; Co. as consultants to the Serpell committee.
These points have already been made in my hon. Friend's point of order, but Mr. Kenneth Sharp, the Government chief accountant, is clear in his guidlines on two points. First, unless it is a trivial issue concerned with a small amount of money, the matter must go out to tender. The Minister has told us that he clearly breached that guideline and did not go out to tender. He picked two firms which, as we have just heard, received more than £500,000 and Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. continues as consultant in this matter to the Department of Transport, as is made clear in the Serpell report.
Secondly, the chief accountant's guidelines make it clear that consultants should never be appointed in certain circumstances. They say:
A candidate firm will be ruled out, without detailed consideration, if … there is a clash, or potential clash, of interests that would result from its appointment.
That is not all. The Government chief accountant goes on to say:
It is … anticipated that firms that do not pass these tests would not accept an invitation to make a presentation.
Our principal responsibility in the House is to ensure that Government moneys are spent properly and without leaving the Minister or his civil servants open to accusations of sharp practice, jobs for the boys, corruption or anything like that.
This matter is so serious that I think that I am justified in asking for the Adjournment of the House so that we may immediately discuss the matter.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) seeks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the clear breach of the Government chief accountant's guidelines in the appointment of R. Travers Morgan and Peat, Marwick, Mitchell &amp; Co. as consultants to the Serpell committee.
The hon. Gentleman has made some serious statements to the House and we have listened with deep concern to what he has said. The House knows that I decide not whether the matter is to be discussed but merely whether it is of such a nature that it should be discussed either tonight or on Monday night, taking precedence over all other business of the House. That is the limit of my powers and discretion.
I have given careful consideration to the hon. Gentleman's representations, but I must rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Mr. Michael Foot: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not in any sense questioning your ruling on the Standing Order No. 9 application and I fully understand your reasons for it. On the other hand, the matter raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) and for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) is of considerable importance. It was raised earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) but his question dealt with only some of the matters which might arise.
In the light of what has been said today, the Government should make a statement. The matter was raised by my hon. Friends at a time when the Secretary of State for Transport had left the House. He has now returned, doubtless having been informed of the matter. However, this is more a matter for the Leader of the House than for any other Minister, and, through no fault of his own, the Leader of the House is not present. As serious matters of public interest are involved, may we have a statement on the matter from the Leader of the House either tomorrow or on Monday? That is the proper way for it to be dealt with. It cannot be left where it is now.

Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. What he has said will have been heard by others.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to that point of order, with which I do not disagree, Mr. Speaker. The answer should be that, with the approval of Mr. Speaker, any Minister may make a statement. As the Secretary of State for Transport is present, is it not in order for him to ask permission of you, Mr. Speaker, to give the pledge for which my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) has asked, or, better still, to answer the questions which have been raised in the application under Standing Order No.9?
I wish to give the Minister the chance to ask your permission, Mr. Speaker, to make a statement which

would resolve matters. It is not a party issue. All hon. Members want to uphold the dignity of the House and our non-corruptible Civil Service. I hope that the Minister will welcome the opportunity to respond to the points that have been made and will make a statement today or ask the Leader of the House for the opportunity to do so tomorrow.

Mr. Frank Dobson: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your guidance? I am not sure, but I believe that the Secretary of State referred to an independent report when he made the statement on the Serpell report. Is it not the custom of the House for a Secretary of State, introducing what purported to be such a report, to draw to the attention of the House the fact that two members of the independent committee of inquiry had a financial interest in consultancy firms which had worked on the report or vice versa?

Mr. Speaker: There is nothing that I can add to what has already been said. The representations have been heard.

Mr. Christopher Price: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the House was not in his place during the earlier exchanges, but he is now and we all know that he takes a serious interest in the probity of the spending of public money. Had the Leader of the House heard what my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) said, I am sure that he would have wished—he looks as though he does so wish—to respond to the serious and important points that were made, if only to promise a statement on the matter tomorrow.

Mr. Booth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that when I first responded to the Minister's statement I said that there were serious doubts as to the propriety of the practice of employing consultants who had a direct financial interest. I did not, for reasons which are understood by the House, make any reference to the guidelines of the Government chief accountant, but that has now been done. In view of that, would it be in order for the Minister to seek permission to reply to the point that was raised?

Mr. Speaker: I shall consider whether I have any responsibility in that regard, but it is clear that I cannot answer off the cuff.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I take my original point further? As a result of the knowledge that you and I have gained over the years on many vital matters, which I believe the House considers this to be, we realise that, while the Minister and/or the Leader of the House may not be able or wish to make a statement immediately, he can do so later today and can ask leave to do so. That has often been done by arrangement through the usual channels. Therefore, may I ask you, Mr. Speaker, not the Leader of the House or the Minister, to give favourable consideration to such a request?

Mr. Speaker: I am always sympathetic to requests from both sides of the House.

Mr. Stanley Cohen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the Minister is present, it is reasonable and desirable—and he owes it to the House—that he should answer the question that is


being put to him by hon. Members about which we are most concerned. To remain silent is discourteous to the House.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I raise what I feel is a reasonable procedural point of order regarding the business of the House. I do so because of the persistent reluctance of the Secretary of State, and indeed the Leader of the House, to respond to hon. Members' wishes.
The point of order arises from a question which I raised yesterday with the Secretary of State when I asked whether he would consider initiating a debate on the Serpell report because of its importance. Because of the unsatisfactory reply that we have received today, and the importance which you, Mr. Speaker, attach to the report, and in view of his willingness to consider such a debate, will the Minister say what progress he has made with the Leader of the House? That would be a step forward.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is an entirely different matter.

Mr. David Howell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. When the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) consults Hansard, I think that he will see that I specifically answered the point that is now being raised when he asked me about it. My reluctance to answer it again was based solely on that. However, in case he did not pick up my answer in the hubbub, and for his benefit and that of other hon. Members, I shall answer it again.
I chose, and my Department chose, Mr. Goldstein and Mr. Butler and their consultancy firms. I did so fully in line with the proper procedures and in conformity with the rules for such appointments.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The way in which you have allowed points of order to be raised demonstrates your serious concern over the issue. In outlining and repeating the question, the Secretary of State has not made it clear why a breach of the chief accountant's rules was allowed in the first place, and what special considerations he had in mind when he allowed it. If that breach was made on those two occasions for those two firms, why bother to have any rules? Why should firms that follow the rules, or firms that do not even tender when the rules are going to be breached, be discriminated against? Two firms have been singled out and those that followed the rules have clearly failed to get any business.
The Secretary of State owes it to the House, because we have a duty to scrutinise expenditure—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have come to the end of points of order on that issue. We have gone into it at length and the Secretary of State has made a statement. If hon. Members wish to pursue the matter, they must do so in some other way.

Mr. Christopher Price: rose—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I shall not take any more points of order on that issue.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a different point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you advise me how, without appearing to grovel to you, I can say that we greatly appreciate the kind way in which you have acted in this matter?

Mr. Speaker: May I say, having listened to the exchange yesterday, that if the hon. Gentleman is a groveller, I would fear to face anyone standing up.

Official Report (Division List)

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have already given you notice of this point of order. It refers to column 284 of yesterday's Hansard, in which the figures for a Division that took place late on Tuesday night are reported. The House is reported as having divided with 16 Ayes and 160 Noes. However, there are 17 names in the Aye column.
I have spoken with one or two hon. Members about this, and it is clear that there is an error in the number of names. Sixteen is the correct number. I recall this as I was one of the Tellers for the Division. I ask through you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is possible for the Division List to be reprinted in the correct form.

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order, but I am advised that the Clerks are convinced that every name in Hansard is the name of an hon. Member who passed them in the Lobby and took part in the vote. I shall, of course, make further inquiries.

Mr. Wigley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. I am suggesting not that there is any irregularity, but that there has been a mistake. The right hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones) has told me that he was not present, and I should have thought that that was enough for Hansard to go on.

Mr. Speaker: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. I shall look into the matter and, if necessary, ensure that a correction is made.

BILL PRESENTED

NUCLEAR MATERIAL (OFFENCES) BILL

Mr. Secretary Whitelaw, supported by Mr. Secretary Pym, Mr. Secretary Prior, Mr. Secretary Howell, Mr. Secretary Lawson, the Attorney-General, and Mr. Patrick Mayhew, presented a Bill to implement the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 62].

Rate Support Grant

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tom King): I beg to move,
That the Rate Support Grant Supplementary Report (England) 1982–83, which was laid before this House on 16th December, be approved.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the motion:
That the Rate Support Grant Report (England) 1983–84, which was laid before this House on 17th January, be approved.

Mr. King: These reports come after nearly four years of steady pressure for restraint in local government spending which has led to a new understanding in local government about the need for current spending to be kept to levels that the nation can afford. There is a growing realisation of the strains that uncontrolled spending impose not just on the householder but, in particular, on business and commerce. It is that new and realistic approach that I want to encourage.
The proposals in the report are designed to encourage further restraint while allowing efficient and responsible authorities to provide a good standard of service at reasonable cost. The central concern must remain the enormous influence that local government expenditure has in the economy as a whole. In 1983–84, the year ahead, local government is expected to spend some £22,000 million on services, mainly in the form of salaries to its employees. Central Government—of course, that means the taxpayer—will contribute to that expenditure about £12,000 million of grant assistance. In that context, no Government could fail to honour their responsibility to set the boundaries of expenditure within which local government should operate.
The purpose of the two reports is to set the parameters for 1983–84 and to confirm the measures to hold back grant from those authorities that are budgeting to overspend both grant-related expenditure and targets in the current year. The supplementary report makes some minor adjustments to grant entitlement that mainly reflect reductions in interest rates. However, its main purpose is to confirm the principles of block grant holdback for 1982–83.
The total holdback for 1982–83, on the basis of local authority budgets, is £308 million. All the authorities that may suffer holdback had clear warning of the consequences that they would face if they increased expenditure above the levels that the majority found necessary. In deciding to reject the Government's request for economy, there could have been no misunderstanding about the consequences for the individual authority. I shall return to the subject of holdback in 1982–83 later, because some things may have changed. However, the tragedy is that the expenditure plans and decisions of some authorities that will incur holdback were clearly taken in a spirit of political dogma. The last to be considered were those—individuals, families and firms—who would ultimately have to meet the bills.
There are three main elements to the report for 1983–84: expenditure, grant, and the holdback proposals for those overspending their targets. On current expenditure, if authorities are prudent, the cash available next year should be about 5 per cent. more than spending this year. That is tough, but reasonable. It implies a continuing need for economies in current expenditure.
We are providing £11·8 billion of grant for 1983–84. That is £300 million more than the curent year. It represents 52·8 per cent. of relevant expenditure compared with 56·1 per cent. last year. We have made no major changes to the way in which grant-related expenditure is assessed, and the basic grant distribution mechanism is unchanged.
However, this is the first settlement that incorporates data from the 1981 census. I know that that will be welcomed, in particular, by those in expanding counties. I note the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon). We are conscious of areas such as Milton Keynes in Buckinghamshire and of the problems of expanding populations. The incorporation of the census data and their further updating represent a significant step forward in correcting the under-assessments of previous settlements. However, I also recognise that, because of the inevitable lags in the data, that problem has not been fully solved, and we shall give it further thought.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his remarks and for the understanding that he has shown about the way in which the 1981 census can help in growing areas whilst still not entirely meeting the problem. I hope that he will bear in mind that it is difficult to explain to rapidly growing counties why they should get less on the grant-related expenditure assessment formulae than they might otherwise get.

Mr. King: I accept that there is a problem. Given my hon. Friend's constituency and his good understanding of such issues, I realise why he has risen on the subject of expanding counties and the problems of changing populations. No doubt other hon. Members who represent authorities with declining populations and, in particular, with rapidly falling school rolls, will advise the House about the difficulties of making immediate and equivalent reductions in education expenditure. Indeed, I seem to have struck a chord with some hon. Members. It is a question of balance. However, I hope that that brief exchange demonstrates that I am very conscious of the issue and of the need to tackle it.
The final target figures were issued to all local authorities in December, but only minor changes were made to the July figures, and all of those were increases. Local government—I am grateful to it—has given an appreciative welcome to the fact that it has had more notice this year than ever before of the likely settlement for the year ahead. We have received representations from local authorities but it is no good receiving the first intimations in January, by which time budgets must be made and rate fixing carried out. That is why I was determined and pleased that we achieved last July as the date at which to give the first guidance of the probable shape of this year's settlement. That will undoubtedly help local government.
Under the system of targets for the year ahead, our proposals are that most low-spending authorities should have a 4 per cent. increase in cash over their budget for this year, but that most high-spending authorities should be expected to make a 1 per cent. cash reduction from their budget this year.
The House will immediately recognise—many hon. Members could have reminded me if I had not mentioned

it—that all authorities are invited to make economies, whether they be the lowest or highest-spending authorities. The highest-spending authorities are being asked to make overwhelmingly the largest contribution. That is right, and I am sure that many of my hon. Friends recognise that the highest spenders have more scope to reduce their consumption. Unless they do, the holdback scheme will bite hard in the coming year.
There can be no misunderstanding about either the intention or the detail of our proposals. The report describes in detail the proposed holdback scheme. During each of the first 2 percentage points of spending above target, grant will be reduced at the rate of 1p at ratepayer level for each 1 per cent. of overspend. For authorities which deliberately decide to spend more than 2 per cent. above the target, the grant will be reduced at the rate of 5p for each 1 per cent. That is very tough, and rightly so.
There is no need for any authority to suffer holdback at this higher penal rate. If they decide to do so, individual councillors will have made those decisions.
The report has been revised since December to make it clear beyond all doubt that the 1983–84 holdback scheme is continuous and will apply to all levels of spending above target. That has always been the intention, and local authority associations were well aware of it; but it was suggested to us that the wording of the earlier version of the report could be ambiguous. To avoid any misunderstanding, therefore, I have today tabled a new version of the report.
In the past three years we have seen many fierce arguments between central and local government about the change in direction that has been necessary. Together with virtually every other major industrial nation, we have tried to reduce spending on consumption, which has been financed in the past only at the expense of savage cuts in the capital programme.
I have had the honour to serve Britain, first, as Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services and now in my present position. During that time I have had to deliver fairly tough messages to local government about the need for economy. When local government is responsible for more than a quarter of all public expenditure, those messages and the delivery of them could not have been avoided by any responsible Minister or Government.
Faced with criticism from the Opposition, I have noted steps that other countries have had to take. France has had to face the possibility of cuts in social security and family and unemployment benefit because of its serious economic problem. We have sought, by means of economic restraint, to live within the bounds of what Britain can afford. I hope that the country will recognise, as do hon. Members, our inescapable duty to seek such economies.

Mr. Stuart Holland: The Secretary of State will no doubt wish to inform the House that the cuts in social security benefits that were introduced in France followed, for the first time, a genuine generalisation of those benefits that had been partial in crucial respects. Therefore, a considerable increase in expenditure was caused by the cuts.
On the Minister's main argument, if it is difficult for one country to go it alone with reflation, what action are the British Government taking in the international arena


to avoid the beggar-my-neighbour syndrome of slump that is induced by the mutual cuts in public and local authority spending in several countries?

Mr. King: I cannot check the list of speakers yesterday, but that intervention sounded as though it came from a frustrated hon. Member in yesterday's debate. The point would have been of great interest to that audience. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) for confirming my point. Whatever his preamble may have been about the generalisation of benefits, he confirmed that the French Government—a Socialist Government—had to carry through cuts that would have caused multiple hysteria among Opposition Members had the British Government tried to introduce them. We tried an alternative and voluntary approach of co-operation, and I make no apologies on behalf of the Government or myself for having done so.
In the past, Britain financed the extravagance of current consumption by savage cuts in the capital programme. During the five years of the Labour Government, capital expenditure by local government was halved, while current consumption rose by about 6 per cent. Long-term investment was sacrificed at the expense of maintaining excessive levels of staffing and of current spending overall. That is why, when we came into government, we inherited the highest ever level of manpower employed by local authorities. We have been trying to reverse that trend. We have had to learn to live within our means.
During that time, I have had to listen to some extreme allegations and assertions. However, in the relative calm of today, I hope that some of the extreme reactions of recent years may now be passing. Too often in the debates there has been assertion and ignorance of the true facts.
I place in context what this great argument is all about, what the demands of a tough Conservative Government are alleged to have been and what they have actually been. The basic fact is that, during the first three years, central Government have asked local government for a cumulative reduction in the volume of its current expenditure of 5·6 per cent. That is 5·6 per cent. during a period in which school rolls have fallen by 8 per cent.—and every hon. Member knows that education is by far the biggest single cost for local government.
In the years before 1979–80, local authorities took some pride in spending in line with the Government's planned figure. Many authorities made that proud boast to me, but of course that happened when the fugures were rising. The trouble was that, when we had to call a halt to that rise, co-operation by several local authorities stopped suddenly. From the opportunity that I have had to observe local government, it is clear that the targets for reduction of less than 2 per cent. a year from the all-time record level of spending were not unreasonable and were well capable of being met by local government as a whole. But even when they were not, central Government responded constructively.
Hon. Members will be aware that the 1982–83 expenditure guidelines deliberately recognised the need to start not from the original targets that were not achieved, but from where we were. However, even then some local authorities deliberately ignored the new guidelines and budgeted to spend far more on consumption than the Government had planned.
Interest rates fell substantially in the summer, and there are now much better prospects for controlling inflation than when the budgets were framed. Therefore, my expectation is that the overspend for this year will be significantly less than was originally expected.
Figures for the current year increasingly confirm my point that the vast majority of local authorities have acted, and will act, responsibly. They understand as well as the Government that increased expenditure is financed through higher Government demands on the taxpayer, higher charges to the consumers of services or higher rates draining family budgets and the resources of industry. There is no other way to finance expenditure. That is the reality. At a time when the private sector in many areas is fighting for its very existence in the face of an unparalleled world recession, local government has an added responsibility to ensure that any additional burdens imposed are the minimum possible.

Sir Albert Costain: My right hon. Friend will recall the correspondence that he has had with Kent county council. Although the council supports him all along the way, councillors believe that, although they have made sacrifices because they have been good boys, they are now being penalised with the bad boys. Can my right hon. Friend assure us about that?

Mr. King: I know that my hon. Friend's anxiety is shared by many of my hon. Friends. I said earlier that we are asking all authorities to make a contribution to the achievement of the economies that we must make. However, I also said that every authority that has matched our targets in the past—Kent is a clear and exemplary illustration—will have a target this year of 4 per cent. above the current year's budget, which was framed when inflation and interest rates were significantly higher. With the normal shortfall that occurs between budget and outturn, I expect that for the low-spending authorities, with prudent and efficient budgeting, the target of 4 per cent. over this year's budget will be reasonable. I hope that my hon. Friend will find that to be the case in his authority.

Mr. Keith Stainton: Will my right hon. Friend pursue that point in terms of the relationship between the 4 per cent. higher target, which is a cash figure, and the grant-related expenditure level?

Mr. King: If my hon. Friend is saying that there is a difference between the targets, that is the whole point. On reflection, I should be grateful that GRE has become such a popular item in the House. I did not believe in the early days that it would catch on in the way that it has, but several of my hon. Friends are now dedicated enthusiasts. By definition, the GRE, which is our best effort, is the average expenditure of authorities that provide an average level of services. Some authorities will be above the average and some will be below. Those hon. Members who have had the misfortune, or whatever they wish to call it, to live with me through several such debates know that I have never claimed absolute precision for the scheme. It would be impossible to do so. It is simply an attempt to make a fair estimate. If it is an average and if we set that as the target, it would be unrealistic, because the high-spending authorities, which we expect to make economies, will still spend above it. A rate of reduction can be achieved beyond which it is impossible to go. I know that my hon. Friend will accept that if the Government are


trying to achieve those overall levels of expenditure, we cannot avoid the conclusion that everyone must make a contribution. However, for the prudent authorities, the contribution is neither unreasonable nor unfair. I have adopted that position because of my observations, and I have put it to the House as frankly and as clearly as I can.
The tragedy of high rate increases is that many companies must close when the rate demand becomes the final marginal cost that they can no longer meet. That has happened in far too many authorities during the past three years. One example is Sheffield, where the chamber of commerce recently carried out a survey. Anyone who knows Sheffield would be worried about unemployment in that city. Yet, in a survey of 150 firms in the area, 49 per cent. said that high rates had contributed to reductions in their work forces during the past two years, and 34 per cent. were contemplating moving to areas with lower rates. That is hardly surprising, because the rate in Sheffield is now 233p in the pound, which is higher than for any other metropolitan district.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I do not defend the example that the Secretary of State has just quoted, but many local authorities—mine is one—wish to help industry through the derating of industrial premises. At present, 50 per cent. rate charges can be applied for a three-month period. Has the right hon. Gentleman considered sympathetically a scheme to enable local authorities to extend that period and to be compensated for doing so, because they would be giving up a substantial sum?

Mr. King: There may be good news for industry in the hon. Gentleman's area, because the matter is entirely at the local authority's discretion. The 50 per cent. is the maximum at which that discretion can be exercised. It is entirely at the authority's discretion to charge no rates on empty premises. For once, it is a town hall, not a Whitehall, decision.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Although I agree with my right hon. Friend's moving description of the effect of the burden of rates on industry—he could also have mentioned trade and domestic ratepayers—is not the logic of his statement that he should have increased the percentage payment of rate support grant so that a lower percentage is based on this utterly unjust system, rather than decreased the percentage paid by rate support grant so that the unjust system pays a higher percentage of expenditure? Is he not, by his actions, contravening his thoroughly convincing argument?

Mr. King: The essence of my thoroughly convincing argument, as my hon. Friend describes it, is to try to strike a balance among the interests of the ratepayers, of the taxpayers, who will pay the grant, and of Britain's overall expenditure. A higher percentage grant might well encourage higher expenditure. We tried to restrain higher expenditure without putting an unreasonable burden on the ratepayer. I hope that events and what I shall say about rates will demonstrate that there is a good chance that that will happen.
Although I cited an especially extravagant authority, the majority of authorities take a more sensible view. The majority are trying to make economies and to hit our targets. It is interesting to note that there has been a

reduction in manpower levels of about 5 per cent. since we came to office. We are now back to the manpower levels of 1972. That is a major achievement.
There is increasing evidence that more savings can be made in a number of areas. I could not help but remember, as I prepared for the debate, that a group of Labour Members, led by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), came to see me last year about the problems of Birmingham. They said that the crucial element in Birmingham's problem was a shortage of grant of £1 million. Hon. Members may know that a Conservative authority has now come to power in Birmingham. It has put refuse collection out to competitive tender, which will result in a substantial saving of £3·5 million per annum. I understand that this year, as a result of the improvements, there will be increased spending to improve the standards of the education service and, at the same time, rates will be reduced by 12 per cent. That is a classic example of a responsible Conservative authority at work.
It is time for a new philosophy and approach in local government. Local authorities are providers, organisers and contractors of a range of services. They have a range of specific duties and powers, but there is no need for the too prevalent conformity of approach that we often find in local government. I hope that local government will search much more diligently for the best ways in which to discharge its responsibilities. All too often things are done like that because things have always been done like that. It is time for some of the practices and approaches to change. We often hear about the "listening bank". I should like increasingly to see the "questioning council"—the council that examines each of its activities and questions whether it is really doing things in the right way. We are certainly anxious to co-operate with authorities in every way we can to help to achieve greater economies.
It is interesting to see how the message—that one can make economies and not destroy services—is getting across. I notice that even some of the least likely candidates are now accepting this assertion. The Labour leader of Avon last year defended rate increases of 40 per cent. as unavoidable to protect essential services. This year the song is a little different. He said:
Economies are being achieved which will have no direct effect on the level of services which we provide.
In West Yorkshire, another Labour-controlled authority, rates rose last year by 56 per cent. This year the leader is advertising an increase of 2·7 per cent. He said:
The low increase … is the result of our unremitting search for economies.
In Humberside last year there was a substantial rate increase of 61 per cent. This year, announcing a 6 per cent. rise, the leader said:
It will be possible to meet the rate target without major cuts in services.

Mr. Frank Dobson: rose—

Mr. King: Thinking back over the years in which we have been pursuing our policies of restraint, I remember all those extraordinary organisations that formed up against us. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. Dobson) may remember the "Vegetarians Against the Cuts" and various other strange anti-cut organisations that marched. Now people are beginning to


understand that there is a prize in value for money that can be achieved, that can make possible reductions in expenditure and still provide adequate services.

Mr. Dobson: rose—

Mr. King: I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I have given way a number of times and I am conscious that other hon. Members wish to speak. I do not wish to detain the House too long.
I believe that we now have a changing attitude in local authorities. There is a growing professionalism and an improvement in management in many of the authorities. My concern is to see that practice and understanding much more widely spread. I want to consolidate the progress that we have already made. I would much rather work in partnership with local government than in a state of mutual suspicion. There is no reason why that should not be. If we can achieve that, the beneficiaries of the partnership will be the ratepayers and the people living in each of those local authorities, many of whom may depend anxiously on the services that are provided. They will benefit when local authorities spend within the guidelines we have sought.
The history is clear. In 1981–82 two thirds of all authorities budgeted to spend within target or within 2 per cent. above target. Nearly seven out of 10 local councils were able to demonstrate that the levels set were achievable. That pattern has continued in the current year. Two thirds of authorities are budgeting to avoid holdback. Conservative authorites are certainly the most conspicuous, but authorities of other parties are doing so as well. Only a minority persist in overspending, and a minority within that minority provide the worst examples year after year.
It is that background and the contribution of those authorities to it that explains the need for targets. We certainly did not wish to introduce targets but, in the face of the flouting of the understanding that all parties previously upheld, neither the Government nor the ratepayers could allow current expenditure provisions consistently to be exceeded. In the past it was the practice to take across-the-board measures which hit both the prudent and the extravagant. We have introduced more selective grant pressures.
We see a pattern emerging. We see three groups of local authorities—those controlled by the Conservative party; those with no overall control; and those controlled by the Labour party. I have examined the figures for rate increases in the current year. In the first group, the Conservative authorities, the precepts increased by 12 per cent. In the second group, those with no overall control and with minority parties, the precepts increased by 21 per cent. Traditionally and predictably, the counties controlled by the Labour party increased rates by a staggering 31 per cent. It is a simple fact that rate poundages and rate increases are and have been higher under Labour councils than under Conservative councils.
That is the reality that ratepayers have had to face in those areas but, even in those areas, times are changing. Authorities now have a chance, because of reducing inflation, falling interest rates and the earliest possible notice of the settlement, without there being any doubt about our intentions for that settlement, to achieve the guidelines that we have set. I say clearly to the House—the

evidence is increasingly mounting—that if those guidelines are followed, as they will be, rate increases will be surprisingly low in a number of areas. Indeed, there will be some rate reductions.
The pattern is starting to evolve. I referred to Birmingham, which is to reduce its rates by 12 per cent. Conservative-led Waltham Forest will reduce its rates by 14 per cent. Perhaps the best news of all, when one remembers recent history, is that the reduction in Kensington and Chelsea may be 25 per cent. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) will agree that if that is the position in Kensington and Chelsea, many will say, "Would that the GLC and ILEA got the same message".
Our targets are fair. Authorities which have behaved responsibly will have a 4 per cent. increase in cash terms. That is a realistic and reasonable figure. There is no reason why the targets cannot be met. The settlement before us today offers local government every incentive to build on the progress that we have made. The trend of spiralling current comsumption has been reversed.
In 1979, we inherited a level of expenditure at an all-time high. By the end of 1981–82 there had been a real reduction from that level, which I want to see continued into the current year. It must be continued into next year. That is what the householder wants and what business, commerce and industry need most of all. It is what the country needs if we are to continue to see inflation reduced, interest rates depressed and the best possible prospect for restoring and strengthening the economy of Britain.
The objective of the settlement is continuing restraint and a return to the traditional co-operation in achieving the Government's overall targets which have marked the history of central and local government. The Government will certainly play their part. I shall seek to follow that objective. I want local government to succeed by its own efforts.
I commend the reports to the House.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: It is, first, my pleasant duty to congratulate the Secretary of State on his appointment. The right hon. Gentleman's promotion is good news for bridesmaids. He has waited a long time for the Prime Minister to pop the question, and she has finally done so. Ministers promoted to new responsibilities generally have to read themselves into their portfolio to acquire their predecessors' knowledge of the subject. In the right hon. Gentleman's case, to acquire his predecessor's knowledge he will have to forget a great deal of what he already knows. Bernard Shaw in his "Maxims for Revolutionists" said that
the man with the toothache thinks everyone happy whose teeth are sound".
With the departure of the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), the ache has softened to a dull throb. Debating the rate support grant without him is like a performance of Peter Pan without Captain Hook.
In an interview with the Municipal Journal last week, the new Secretary of State hospitably informed local authorities that "my door is open". Unfortunately, his speech today showed that his mind is closed. He has already acquired some of his predecessor's bad habits, and anyone listening to him would never have guessed that the


rate support grant is the worst ever recorded—52·8 per cent. compared with 61 per cent. when Labour left office. Moreover, Labour's percentage was a proportion of actual expenditure. This fourth Tory rate support grant will reach as high as 52·8 per cent. only if current expenditure adheres to the right hon. Gentleman's arbitrary spending ceilings.
For the first time ever, rate support grant in the forthcoming year may fall to less than 50 per cent. of outturn expenditure. One reason for the confusion is that the Secretary of State uses cash terms when he wants to pretend that he is being generous to local authorities. In paragraph 6 of the statement to the consultative council he misleadingly claimed that the grant was up by £298 million over last year. Yet in paragraph 17 of the same statement there is a sudden switch to what he calls
a real level of spending".
In annex L of the main report the right hon. Gentleman goes so far as to use a repricing factor. Even that is unrealistic, as it assumes an inflation rate throughout the financial year of 5 per cent.
It falls to the Opposition to give the facts about the settlement. The reduction in rate support grant since the Government took office, in proportionate terms, is 8·2 per cent. In constant prices, the annual award has fallen by an enormous £1,600 million. The cut in block grants in real money since Labour left office is no less than 15·4 per cent. Householders are worse off, because by keeping domestic rate relief at the same figure as it was eight years ago—18·5p—the Secretary of State is cutting the relief in real terms to 6p. That, not local authority profligacy, is one reason why rate bills will be higher in the spring.
The right hon. Gentleman has already had his ritual publicity pictures taken in Liverpool. Yet Merseyside and all the other inner-city areas will be hit even harder than the remainder of Britain. Their share of the savagely reduced total grant—and that in the improbable eventuality that they avoid any holdback penalty—will be at most 19 per cent. of the total, compared with 23·5 per cent. in the Labour Government's last settlement. That means that the most needy areas will lose £767 million in block grant—32 per cent. of the grant that they received under Labour. Their cut in grant will be more than twice the national reduction. That puts into perspective the sort of sanctimonious platitudes that we are accustomed to hearing from the Government Front Bench about their concern for the plight of the inner cities.
The Government bear much of the responsibility for that plight, yet they have attempted to adjust the rate support grant factors in favour of some of the deprived. For example, there is a recognition in the report of the impact of unemployment by the increase in the GREA youth unemployment factor from £120·58 per unit to £265·39 per unit. That is an effort to recognise reality, even though the weird position of the statistics is quite inexplicable. However, the anomalies in that lunatic system remain as mystifying as ever.
When the previous Secretary of State, two years ago, introduced his rate support grant under the new system he confidently informed the House:
The new grant … is distributed in such a way that the system used for the purpose is clear and open."—[Official Report, 14 January 1981; Vol. 996, c. 993.]
Let us consider some of the items in the clear and open system. The methodology of awarding grant for concessionary fares is still based on the number of

potential travellers who would benefit if a concessionary fares scheme happened to be in operation, rather than on the number who benefit because one is in operation. Therefore, it pays an authority not to have a concessionary fares scheme, because it receives the grant without having to spend anything in return. Thirty-two local authorities that do not pay one penny towards public transport receive grant as a reward for not contributing. Thirty-one of them are Conservative-controlled—the thirty-second is not Labour-controlled.
The criterion for awarding grant for museums and art galleries has nothing to do with anything so obvious and boring as actually providing museums and art galleries. It is based on the total shopping floor space in a local authority area, presumably on the assumption that a housewife, exhausted from trailing around the shops in a vain search for bargains, will pop into the local museum to gaze at a Henry Moore while recuperating her strength. In Greater Manchester that fantasy has the consequence that Trafford receives 8 per cent. of the rate support grant available for museums, even though it has no museum. Trafford, instead of supplying the Henry Moore, provides the hole. Trafford is a Conservative-controlled local authority.
The Secretary of State spoke in a self-congratulatory manner about the treatment of Buckinghamshire, yet Mr. Roger Parker-Jervis, the Tory chairman of Buckinghamshire county council, has declared:
Previous confusion is worse confounded and the handful of specialists who are able to interpret where the money will go already advise that the formula is demonstrably unfair to ratepayers in some areas and overgenerous to others".
It is no wonder that he laments:
Present proposals for its distribution are again incredibly complicated, once more use a fresh and untried formula, and are incomprehensible to the ordinary man in the street.
I challenge the Secretary of State to stop a man in the street in Buckinghamshire or Bridgwater and put to him the formulae contained in the letter sent to local authorities from his Department. To be fair, the letter starts with a joke. It says "For convenience". It continues, and I shall quote just a small fragment, by saying that
the formula is in 3 stages:
1) GRP=GRP*+(D)(A)
where GRP* is the national standard poundage for the class, D is the expenditure difference from GRE for the authority in £ph, and A is the slope of the schedule below the threshold expressed in £'s per £ eg 0·006.
This leads eventually to:
the slope of the schedule above the threshold as:
B+(Y)(X2) (D-TH)x-1".
There are four more pages of that. The letter is signed by the Einstein of the Department of the Environment, Mr. Phillip D. Ward. I hope that duty never requires me to read Mr. Ward's collected letters.
The press recently carried the following disquieting report:
Profound alarm was felt yesterday among commercial organisations after news that a young Israeli mathematician had cracked the world's most secret code raising fears that no secret message can now remain secret for long. Mr. Adi Shamir, 30, of the Weizmann Institute, has broken the 'public key' code, invented by three American mathematicians in 1980. It was hailed at the time as the ultimate masterpiece of cryptography. … His discovery is highly alarming both for government spying organisations".
I recommend that if these Government spying organisations want the ultimate masterpiece of cryptography, with which no young interfering young Israeli will be able to meddle, they should apply to Mr.
Phillip D. Ward, 2 Marsham street, London SW1. The complacency with which the Government regard the abtruse complexities is alarming. I invite the House to examine the report with its decimalised tables, algebraic formulae and all the other pages of arcane mathematics and reconcile it with the statement in the memorandum of the Department of the Environment to the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments which has been made available to the House today:
The Department has been considering ways of reducing the length and complexity of rate support grant reports and supplementary reports and the Report in question was drafted with these objectives in mind".
The impact of the rate support grant on local authorities is extremely damaging. Devon will lose 10 per cent. of its last year's grant. For Cornwall the reduction in grant will be 11·7 per cent. It is no wonder that Mr. Granville Sharp, a Tory councillor in West Sussex, said last week that
the view of many—including Conservative county councillors like myself—is that Michael Heseltine's policies are a menace to good local government … This high-handed, grossly unfair and dictatorial attitude of the Marsham Street people not only penalises the needed work of low-spending councils, but also will alienate many Conservative and non-aligned voters. I hope Michael Heseltine's successor, Tom King, will be instructed to change drastically his Department's plans, which are so damaging to local government and the countryside.
It is no wonder that Mr. Douglas Robertson, the chairman of Surrey county council policy committee, says that the rate support grant settlement places Surrey in an extremely grave situation. He goes on to say:
It will undoubtedly mean either considerable reductions in our services in the year ahead or a substantial rate increase in April".
The Secretary of State is so perplexed by the sheer lack of logic in grant allocation that he is spending up to £200,000 on commissioning the school of advanced urban studies of the university of Bristol to undertake a research project into the system and examine the scope for improvements. I can save the Government that money without any difficulty. The main cost-effective improvement would be to get rid of the zany system altogether.
One problem is that these days, when we consider rate support grant, the actual award of grant—crucial though it undoubtedly is—seems almost incidental. Far more time and thought—if the word "thought" is appropriate in this context—are devoted to spending ceilings and penalties for alleged overspending. Almost all of the Secretary of State's speech was devoted to penalties.
Today, in addition to the main report for the next financial year, we are considering yet another penalties report, this time for the current financial year, even though when the report was presented only two thirds of the financial year had elapsed and it was impossible to know what the actual expenditure figures would be. The penalties are linked to spending ceilings. The ceilings—targets, as the Secretary of State misleadingly dubs them—cause confusion, because every year the Government change the way in which they are calculated. They also change the penalties and the ways in which the penalties can be avoided.
The Conservative-controlled Association of District Councils calls this year's targets "unfair and arbitrary". Its chairman of housing, Mr. John Morgan, has warned the Secretary of State:

Yet another switch in target methodology which for some authorities means cuts of up to 50 per cent. in the effective target can only do irreparable damage to the credibility of your"—
that is the Secretary of State's—
whole strategy".
The Secretary of State claims that the supplementary report is justified because it penalises overspenders. Even if we accept—which I do not—that any authority is overspending because it spends more than the Secretary of State wants it to spend, the report penalises fewer than half of them. Whereas 268 local authorities spent above the Secretary of State's targets, only 126 are being punished. The remaining 142 escape because of the amnesty for councils which spend above their ceiling but below their GREA, even though the Secretary of State assured the House that
grant-related expenditure assessments relate to the 'total expenditure' of each authority, whereas the volume targets relate only to current expenditure. They cannot, therefore, be directly compared."—[Official Report, 16 March 1981; Vol. 1, c. 46].
The House may not regard it as entirely coincidental that in this supplementary report, of the 96 Labour councils spending above their ceilings, 81 are being penalised, and that of the 148 Tory councils spending above their ceilings, 118 are not being penalised. Councils responsible for £405 million of what the Government call overspending will escape scot-free. Bristol, a Labour authority, with an overspend of 1·6 per cent., is penalised. Kingswood, which is Conservative, with an overspend of 36·7 per cent., is not penalised. In Derbyshire, North-East Derbyshire, a Labour authority with an overspend of 0·1 per cent. is being penalised. West Derbyshire, which is Conservative, with an overspend of 10·4 per cent., is not being penalised.
In Hereford and Worcester, Wyre Forest, which is not controlled by any party and has an overspend of 4·3 per cent. is penalised, but the Liberal-controlled Hereford authority, with an overspend of 14·5 per cent., is not penalised. In Hertfordshire, Labour-controlled Watford, with an overspend of 1·4 per cent., is penalised, but Conservative North Hertfordshire, with an overspend of 12·9 per cent., is not. In Nottinghamshire, Labour-controlled Mansfield, with an overspend of 6·9 per cent., is penalised, but Conservative-controlled Gedling, with an overspend of 15·7 per cent., is not. And so it goes on. The penalties are so irrational that 11 councils accused of overspending will lose more in penalty than they are said to have overspent.
In the coming financial year the sheer dishonesty of what the report proposes will make the anomalies even more unjustifiable. The Local Government Finance Act 1982, the statute that belatedly makes lawful these previously unlawful operations, provides in section 8(2):
Any guidance issued for the purposes of subsection (6)(cc) above shall be framed by reference to principles applicable to all local authorities.
Let us consider some of the principles applicable to all local authorities.
In accordance with the Secretary of State's preliminary statement last July, local authorities' spending ceilings were to be based on their budgets for 1982–83 as stated in their block grant claim form BG3. After submitting those forms, however, some councils found that, for reasons that we shall examine, it would benefit them to increase their budgets. This they did on another form called RER83. Paragraph 3 of annex E of the rate support grant report contains a little surprise—the higher of the budgets submitted in BG3 or RER83 is the one that will count in


calculating the spending ceiling. The result is to increase the ceilings for 29 councils—17 Conservative-controlled and eight Labour-controlled. That is quite a nice principle
applicable to all local authorities".
Paragraph 2 of annex E makes another change when it lays down that where the spending ceiling stated last July would mean that the council's expenditure in the next financial year would fall below its budget for 1981–82 the ceiling shall be adjusted upwards to the level of the 1981–82 budget. The Secretary of State has invented a revolutionary architectural concept—he has provided a floor for the ceilings. That innovation, or this new principle,
applicable to all local authorities
raises the ceilings for 15 local authorities—all Conservative—controlled.
In addition, the preliminary statement last July provided that ceilings should be no more than 20 per cent. higher than a council's budget for 1981–82—in other words, there was a ceiling for the ceiling. That condition was introduced specifically to reduce the spending ceiling of the GLC, whose budget for 1982–83 was exceptionally high due to the deficit on London Transport caused by the Law Lords' ruling.
The Secretary of State wished to find a further way of penalising the GLC. To his dismay, however, he found that two other authorities would be caught by the 20 per cent. limit. Paragraph 2 of annex E of the rate support grant report therefore raises to 25 per cent. the July limit of 20 per cent. So keen are the Government to discriminate against the GLC alone that they even allowed the change to benefit a Labour council—Corby—as well as Tory Milton Keynes. This is what the Act describes as a principle
applicable to all local authorities
but it is specifically designed to penalise one authority out of 411.
There is, however, a limit to the extent to which even this Government can fiddle the rules to suit their friends or their prejudices. Thus, some authorities penalised under the supplementary report for this year will be compensated for their alleged profligacy by receiving more grant next year. There are 77 such authorities, 29 of which are so fortunate that their grant will be higher in real terms even if inflation is more than 7 per cent. Their good fortune is to be contrasted with the ill luck of a further 108 authorities which budgeted to spend so little this year that they are not only not penalised in the supplementary report but do not even need the GRE exemption to escape punishment. The prudence of the virtuous 108 is to be requited by receiving less grant in cash terms under the report. In real terms, their grant will fall by nearly 8 per cent.
There are then the idiots so loyal to the Government that this year they budgeted to spend below their ceilings—the councils which the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Sir A. Costain) described in his moving intervention as the good boys. Authorities that were less careful with their money are to be allowed to spend 5 per cent. more than their last year's ceiling or GREA without being punished. That is why some councils, having twigged the dodge, sent in RER83 forms to increase their budgets. The most penny-pinching and virtuous councils of all, however, having budgeted below their ceilings, are to be penalised if they spend not 5 per cent. above their ceiling but 4 per cent. above their budget, which itself is below their

ceiling. No fewer than 108 councils are caught in that trap, and for 23 of them the cash ceiling is actually lower than last year.
The predicament of those councils was movingly described in a letter by Councillor Mrs. L. M. S. Anderson, leader of Tewkesbury council. This is her touching lament to the Secretary of State:
My Council considers that it is being severely penalised because it produced a 1982–83 budget lower than the spending target set by you. This Budget was produced by curtailing some services and, indeed, by withdrawing others ….
The decision that spending targets for 1983–84 be set at 4 per cent. above the 1982–83 Budgets and not 1982–83 targets inevitably leads us to the obvious conclusion that low-spending authorities are being unfairly treated.
If Tewkesbury borough council had produced a Budget for 1982–83 in line with the spending target set for that year, its 1983–84 target would have been £2,565,000 instead of £2,289,000, an increase of £276,000.
The letter continues:
Although non-political with no distinctly drawn lines, the majority of the Councillors are Conservatives
and in a paragraph that may lead the hardest heart to bleed in sympathy, Mrs. Anderson says:
With District elections is prospect … the majority of Councillors are naturally concerned about their position".

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: As the right hon. Gentleman has done so much research on this, can he tell us how many of the councils suffering in that way are Conservative?

Mr. Kaufman: The overwhelming majority are Conservative. That is why I say that although the Secretary of State fiddles as much as he can he has produced a system then even has the fault that he cannot fiddle it in favour of his friends as much as he would like. I have shown that where he can fiddle it, he does, but he has produced a system so insensitive to human influence that he cannot fiddle it wherever he wishes, even when it damages his friends.

Mr. Dobson: I have some sympathy with my right hon. Friend's clear exposition of the fact that the Secretary of State is incapable of distinguishing between wise and foolish virgins in local government, but I want to refer to his reference to the requirement that the Government can only enunciate principles covering all local authorities. Does my right hon. Friend agree that what has been done by a series of computer runs, coming up with a general principle which punished only the GLC, is clearly contrary to the spirit of the legislation? Does he agree that it may well be contrary to the letter of the legislation, and that consequently the Secretary of State, not for the first time, may find himself in the High Court trying to explain how and why he has been breaking the law in an effort to penalise Labour local authorities?

Mr. Kaufman: The Secretary of State for the Environment, in his incarnation as a holder of an office rather than as an individual, has left himself open to legal action before and has been held to have acted unlawfully. It would be interesting if local authorities, penalised by the way in which these alleged general principles have been manipulated, decided to test in the courts what the Secretary of State has done.

Mr. King: The right hon. Gentleman would not wish to mislead the House. He appears to imply that the change made in the principle to which he referred was intended to victimise the GLC. It actually had the effect of


benefiting the GLC by increasing its grant. As I said in my speech, each of the changes involved increases for every authority concerned.

Mr. Kaufman: Yes, indeed. What happened was that the Secretary of State, by increasing the level from 20 to 25 per cent.—he chose 25 per cent. because that was the amount necessary to exclude Corby and Milton Keynes; he would be dishonest to deny that—for the purpose of avoiding difficulty for those two local authorities, was required to ease the position of the GLC. If he had really wanted to help the GLC, he would not have had the principle. The principle exists to penalise the GLC. The adjustment of the principle relieves the GLC of part of the pressure on it, but only part of that pressure. Indeed, the Secretary of State agrees with what I am saying. The GLC will read that with interest, because the Secretary of State now admits on the Floor of the House that that principle exists to hurt the GLC.

Mr. King: As the right hon. Gentleman seeks to misrepresent me, I shall make the position clear. All hon. Members know and understand why the principle is there. If one is fixing a budget and seeking to be fair to all authorities, there must be a limit on those authorities whose increase in expenditure has been substantial over the two years. We know why the GLC budget took the sudden leap that it did, but, in fairness, because this is an issue of fairness to all authorities in sharing out grant, that change was made. We received representations. One of those representations was from the GLC, and we responded in part to those representations.

Mr. Kaufman: I am sure that all those who study these matters will be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for being so open with the House and admitting that this principle, a principle which the law says should be applicable to all local authorities, has been invented to deal with one local authority, the Greater London council.
That brings me to yet another group of councils which have cause for concern as a result of the report. If the hon. Member for Wirral (Mr. Hunt) is not interested in what is being said, I suggest that he goes back to his constituents and discusses with his local authority the problems in Merseyside, which are caused by what is being done to rate support grant for Merseyside.
I come, therefore, to the councils which in the coming year will have ceilings below their GREAs. It is a matter to which the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) drew our attention, and one about which the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe is worried. The House will recall that the GREAs are levels up to which the Department of the Environment says that councils need to spend to provide a standard level of services. However, with no GREA exemption from penalty next year, councils which spend over their ceiling and up to GREA will be punished, for the astonishing reason that they are trying to provide the services which the Secretary of State says they should provide. More than half of the councils in England—231 out of 411—face this problem. By a sad irony—I donate this point to the hon. Member for East Grinstead (Sir G. Johnson Smith)—most of them are Tory shire districts and Tory shire counties. Kent county council, if it provides the services which the Secretary of State says it should provide, will be penalised to the extent of a 20p rate in the pound.
By now hon. Members may feel that we have reached the politics and the mathematics of Bedlam, but in the words of Al Jolson
You ain't heard nothin' yet, folks".
Paragraph 38 of the main report promises that increased expenditure on the urban programme will escape penalty by being excluding from the spending ceilings. It said that such expenditure will be "specifically encouraged". However, there is nothing in this report to give effect to that exemption for expenditure which the Secretary of State says is "specifically encouraged". The fact is that inner city councils will be penalised by grant holdback for this specifically encouraged expenditure until the House approves a supplementary report some time in the unspecified future.
So benefits must wait, but penalties are immediate. In the debate on last month's penalties report, I drew attention to the plight of those councils which are to lose grant because their budgets are above the ceiling, even though their spending for the budget year, all properly audited, is not above the ceiling. These improperly and unfairly penalised councils have been told by the Government that their penalty cannot be withdrawn, even though they have done nothing to be penalised for, because the penalty is contained in a supplementary report, and the report, which is a parliamentary order, cannot be amended.
The Secretary of State gave this explanation in a letter to the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell), who made representations on behalf of North West Leicestershire district council. He said:
I can assure you that it is Parliamentary procedure, and not bureaucratic inertia, which prevents the existing report being amended piecemeal".
Lord Bellwin, the new Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services, went into more detail in the letter to the council itself. He said:
The reasons why the Supplementary Report which has been presented to Parliament cannot now be amended as you suggest, are entirely matters of Parliamentary procedure. Once an RSG report has been presented to Parliament, it cannot be amended, only withdrawn".
What have we heard from the Secretary of State today? He admitted that, because of a ludicrous mistake, on Monday he withdrew the very report that we should have been debating today, amended it, and introduced in its place the report that we are now debating. He told the House in his speech this evening that he did that because the original report could be ambiguous. In fact he did it because, if he had not done so, local authorities could have taken successful legal action against him. In withdrawing the rate support grant report, amending it, and representing it to Parliament, he has done to suit himself what he told North West Leicestershire council he could not do to provide relief for it and other unfairly penalised councils. In an answer to me today the Secretary of State said that the cost to public funds of reprinting and redistributing the rate support grant report was £3,500.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The right hon. Gentleman has enlightened and entertained the House, but I am sure that he would not want to get away with something that is close to a deception. He must know from his experience, as all of us who have to do with rate support grant settlements know, that one cannot amend, take away or change an RSG once the House has considered it and agreed it.
Certainly my right hon. friend has taken back a proposal by the Government which the House at that time had not considered and had not agreed.

Mr. Kaufman: If only the hon. Gentleman had followed these matters, he would not have found it necessary to make that invalid intervention. In the case to which I referred, that of North West Leicestershire—another local authority, Knowsley, was affected—after the Secretary of State presented the supplementary report penalising those local authorities in the summer, they wrote and told him that their accounts had been audited and demonstrated that they had spent below his ceiling, so there was no valid reason for penalising them. They therefore asked him to change the report so that their penalties could be removed. The Secretary of State told them—and I have quoted it—

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: It was under the standing orders of the House.

Mr. Kaufman: It was not under the standing orders of the House. The Secretary of State told that local authority and others that he could not do that because the report had been presented and he could not amend it, only withdraw it and re-present it. It was open to him to do so. He had several months in which to do so, but he did not.
It was drawn to the Secretary of State's attention that the report that we are debating would damage a number of other local authorities. He withdrew it, amended it and re-presented it. Therefore, he did precisely what we recommended he should do for the other local authorities. I fear that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), in his eagerness to assist his right hon. Friend, has made a serious error, although I am sure that he has done so inadvertently, as he so often does when he is making errors.
In his parliamentary answer, the Secretary of State told me that the cost of the whole operation of withdrawing the report and re-presenting it was £3,500. I should be grateful if he would re-examine that figure and make sure that the cost of re-presenting a 64-page report—scrapping previous copies and presenting new ones—is only £3,500. If he confirms that it is only £3,500, I should be grateful if he would supply me with the name of the printer. At these prices, I should like that printer to print my election address for me when the next general election comes.
In fact, the right hon. Gentleman is showing himself to be a true disciple of his predecessor. The right hon. Member for Henley made a mess of two local government Bills and had to withdraw them and then reintroduce them. The right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) has made a mess of his first rate support grant report and has had to withdraw it and then reintroduce it. That is what is known as continuity of policy.

Mr. King: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is a better student of history than that and has a good memory of dates. Surely he remembers who tabled the first rate support grant report.

Mr. Kaufman: I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman has taken this early opportunity to dissociate himself from his predecessor. He has picked up the material that he used to collect on behalf of his right hon. Friend when his horse had travelled in front of him, and he has thrown it at his right hon. Friend.

Mr. King: I was intrigued by the right hon. Gentleman's opening remarks, when he compared me to a bridesmaid. This is the first bridesmaid that I have seen with a shovel.

Mr. Kaufman: The right hon. Gentleman is unfortunately, also, as his confessions come thick and fast, a bridesmaid who is clearly not a virgin.
In his statement to the House last month, the former Secretary of State, whom the new Secretary of State takes every possible opportunity to disown—I do not blame him—told the House, with the present Secretary of State sitting by him and nodding in agreement, that
rate increases next year should for most authorities be nil or in low single figures."—[Official Report, 16 December 1982;Vol. 32, c. 489.]
This afternoon the Secretary of State said that he thought that rate increases would be surprisingly low.
That is not how many Tory local authority leaders see the prospect. Mr. Ian McCallum, the chairman of the Association of District Councils, says:
The combined effects of the reduction in total grant, which shifts the burden of paying for local services from the taxpayer to the ratepayer, together with technical changes in the distribution system itself, makes widescale lower rates rises scarcely possible.
The Oxfordshire country treasurer has warned:
Even though we may be on target for this year's spending there still could be a large rate rise next year because we may be getting a lower grant.
Mr. Brian Tanner, the county treasurer in the Secretary of State's county of Somerset said:
My immediate reaction is one of bitter disappointment.
If we are to pursue our policy of maintaining services at the same level as last year with an extra one and a half million pounds in the education budget there is no way we can keep percentage rate increases in single figures.
Whenever we hear from the Secretary of State now about local authorities—

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Come on.

Mr. Kaufman: If the hon. Gentleman did not wish me to take such a long time, he would have done well not to interrupt me and require me to answer him in such convincing detail.
Whenever the tale of woe of any council, Tory or Labour, is cited, the Secretary of State parades his new golden boy, Birmingham, as he did this afternoon. If Birmingham can do it, we are told, so can anyone else. Birmingham is to cut its rate by 12 per cent. That amounts to a saving of £24 million. How has that miracle been achieved? First, it has happened because the quirks of the rate support grant award have increased Birmingham's grant by £14 million, so that accounts for £14 million of the £24 million. That is not so much good housekeeping—it is more a lucky windfall. Although Birmingham now claims that it is increasing the social services budget for next year, it cut the social services budget for this year after it came to power in May.
Birmingham also increased rents three months ago by an average of £1·50 per week on top of last April's increase, so it saved money that otherwise would have been transferred from the general rate fund. What is more, it is planning another rent increase this year of £1·25 a week compared with the Government's guideline of 85p. All its cuts, together with windfall gains, have increased Birmingham's balances by £25 million. Rent increases alone will bring it £17 million. Add that to the rate support grant increase of £14 million, and one gets a total gain of


£39 million. That is how Birmingham has managed a rate reduction of £24 million in the forthcoming financial year. It is easy to be so generous in the forthcoming financial year if one has been foresighted enough to make excessive cuts and rent increases in the previous financial year.
Local authority finances are in an almost inextricable mess. The ceilings are not being met. The Government have had to confess defeat by increasing provision for local authority spending this coming year by £900 million more than is allowed for in the public expenditure White Paper. The arithmetic is so perverse that any local authority spending up to 4 per cent. above its ceiling next year will suffer less than it does for the same excess this year. Therefore, the penalty system in many cases will result in extra expenditure. Camden is able to look forward to a single figure rate rise this year because for two years it has received no rate support grant whatsoever. Accordingly it can make plans without being subject to a penalty.
No wonder that, faced with that insane mess of their own making, the Government are so sick of local government finance that they are planning to divert attention by another local government reorganisation. The party that set up the Greater London council now says that London's problems can be solved only by abolishing the GLC. The party that set up the metropolitan counties states that the problem of England's cities can be solved only by abolishing the metropolitan counties. When it comes to excuses, this Government are endlessly inventive.
For the first three years of this Parliament the Government put the blame for anything that went wrong on the last Labour Government. As they approach an election they are turning their blame on the next Labour Government. The new Secretary of State caps it all by blaming the mess in local government partly on the last Tory Government and partly on the Tory Government before that. This will be the last Tory rate support grant report. The next report will be presented by a Labour Government. The task of restoring fairness and justice to our hard-pressed local authorities and their overburdened ratepayers will begin.

Mr. Fergus Montgomery: I am grateful for having been called in this debate. I shall make a short speech. We have just had a long and interminable speech from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman)—[HON. MEMBERS: "Fifty minutes"]. It seemed much longer.
The ratepayers of Trafford have come out of this settlement very badly. I understand that my right hon. Friend and his Department are checking several figures to see whether any mistakes have been made. I hope that a check will be made on the numbers of children in Trafford schools. I cannot for the life of me understand why the figures now show that the drop in school rolls in Trafford is much greater than in any of the other local education authorities in Greater Manchester. That is critically important to Trafford's rate support grant calculation.
Ever since the borough of Trafford was formed, it has been Conservative controlled, as the right hon. Member for Ardwick so eloquently said. It has watched the spending of ratepayers' money very carefully. As a consequence, it has levied the lowest rate support poundage of any of the 10 metropolitan district councils

in Greater Manchester. That is a matter of pride for the Conservative-controlled council. It has been beneficial to the householders and to the industries of Trafford.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State talked about the problems facing industry in areas where there are excessive rate bills, and the effect that has on unemployment. Trafford has practised policies that have been prudent and has tried to look after its ratepayers' money, but that does not seem to have done the authority much good in this rate support grant settlement.
About three years ago the then Secretary of State brought in the present concept of the block grant. That idea was welcomed by the Conservative-controlled Trafford council. It believed that the new grant would be allocated according to an objective assessment of the needs and resources of local authorities and that it would no longer be based on the unjustifiable spending levels of certain spendthrift councils. Trafford has never asked for special treatment, only for a fair deal.
Trafford council believes that the new grant would be fairer to the prudent local authorities that closely examine expenditure. Previously, it had watched in disbelief while spendthrift councils were rewarded and encouraged by generous settlements from the same system that in 1974–75, when the Labour party was in power, had dealt a crippling blow to the new metropolitan borough of Trafford by under-providing subvention. Despite that, Trafford continued its policy of trying to put forward prudent policies, and it has been proclaimed by successive Ministers as a model local authority.
Every Government guideline that has been brought out has been scrupulously observed, services have been controlled, cuts—many of which Trafford has been unhappy about—have been made and implemented. Trafford Conservatives have prided themselves on an efficient financial administration. They had hoped that the new grant system would give them the fair deal that they sought. The treatment meted out to Trafford is unmatched in severity by anything suffered by any other metropolitan authority, certainly in the Greater Manchester area.
Statistics can be used to make a case for or against something, but statistics often confuse people. I should like to enumerate seven facts about the problems that face Trafford council.
First, it has been told that its grant is to be cut from £24·464 million to £21·339 million next year. That is a cut of more than £3 million before inflation is even taken into account.
Secondly, since the new grant was introduced in 1981–82, Trafford has been notified of no less than 10 reductions. How can it be expected to plan sensibly for the running of its services when that sort of thing happens?
Thirdly, the grant settlement of £26 million in 1981–82 is being knocked down to £21 million in 1983–84—a decrease in real terms of £8 million or 28 per cent.
Fourthly, in round figures, the 1983–84 settlement means an 18 per cent. rate increase, even though Trafford proposes to spend only at the level of the Secretary of State's guideline. It is not difficult to imagine the confusion caused to the leaders of Trafford council when, at the same time, the Department of the Environment released a local press statement saying that
average rate increases will be very low indeed.
Fifthly, Trafford's grant-related expenditure assessment has been reduced, not just in real terms but in cash,


from £70·885 million to £70·775 million, while in the contrary direction its target has been increased from £66·597 million to £70·484 million.
Sixthly—this is one of the points on which I feel strongly—Trafford is regarded in the grant system as a high resource area because of its high rateable value per head. The practical result of the redistribution of resources that follows from this is that in the current year, including both district and county rate and grant-borne expenditure, while 25 metropolitan districts spend more per head than Trafford, in only 12 does the average domestic ratepayer actually have to pay more.
My seventh point is that last year Trafford council absorbed a cut of £2 million. At that time it went to the Department of the Environment to see the Minister to give early warning of the problems it would face if the situation deteriorated any further. We now know that the situation has deteriorated even further.
Some explanation must he given to the councillors and ratepayers of Trafford. My constituents feel that they have reached the limit at which they can be expected to absorb reductions in the grant. I ask my hon. Friend who is to reply to the debate to look very carefully at Trafford's case again.
I reiterate that Trafford council is not seeking any special consideration. Either there has been a mistake in the calculations or the formula being followed is at fault if a local authority such as Trafford, which has consistently implemented Government policy and controlled local government expenditure, is to be penalised year after year.
In last week's issue of the Altrincham and Sale Guardian, the leading article was devoted to this question. I do not think I can do better than to quote it:
When other local authorities in the country were being condemned by the Government for over-spending or even refusing to follow Government guidelines, Trafford Borough Council was being congratulated for its good 'housekeepng' … and rightly so.
For Trafford has been cautious—some would say over-cautious—in spending public money and as a result, ratepayers throughout the borough have not been faced with the massive rates increases, which have been evident in some parts of the country.
The news, therefore, that the borough's rate support grant, had been cut by a frightening £3,125 million came as a bitter blow to finance chiefs in Trafford who, quite obviously are surprised and disappointed with the Government's action.
A genuine mistake by Whitehall or a calculation which, in effect, gives Trafford the worst settlement of any metropolitan district in the country?
Finance chiefs are investigating and we have no doubt that Whitehall has already felt the full force of Trafford's anger at being treated so unjustly.
If an error has been made, we hope, for all our sakes, that the Government will quickly rectify the position.
If not, then this drastic cut in the rate support grant, of about 13 per cent. will mean that Trafford is being treated shabbily and being penalised, whereas the high spenders are getting away with it.
Such treatment cannot be tolerated by a local authority which prides itself on continually fixing the lowest rate in the Greater Manchester area.
Like many others, we believed the Government's policy was to punish the high spenders. Given that a serious error has not occurred in calculating Trafford's RSG, it makes nonsense of everything that Trafford has tried to do.
That leading article puts the case succinctly and much more effectively than anything I can say.
I have made this speech to protest to the Government about the treatment that has been handed out to the

ratepayers of Trafford. I shall listen carefully to my hon. Friend's reply. How I vote will very much depend on the satisfactory assurances that I hope he will give.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I congratulate the Secretary of State on his elevation. Just before Christmas I said that I hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would receive good news during the recess, and it came just in time.
No one in local government ought to be surprised by the settlement announced by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor on 16 December, because it was very much in line with the statement on 27 July. That does not mean that it is a good settlement, because palpably it is not. That is evident from the speech of the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Montgomery). However, we had plenty of warning of what to expect.
There are many valid reasons why the settlement is unsatisfactory, some of which have already been outlined. First and foremost, the system is still enormously complicated. Any hon. Member who was present earlier and heard the algebraic calculations knows that that is true. That arises from using one method to assess the need to spend and to award GREAs, and a different method to set a target and to assess grant penalties for failing to observe it. The vagaries of the GRE assessment are such that the use of the 1981 census figures shows little correlation between client-population increase and GRE increase.
Metropolitan county councils with declining populations show the largest GRE increases, which leads one to suspect that the GREs are still unduly influenced by past spending patterns rather than client numbers. I am sure that that will be a consistent feature of the speeches we hear tonight.
It seems that a majority of the shire counties—about 59 per cent.—are likely to be penalised for spending below their assessed need for grant purposes. That is daft. I appreciate that in the coming year £904 million—about 4 per cent.—has been added to targets but not to GREs to help soften the blow. However, we are told this will not be repeated in 1984–85. How will that affect block grant entitlements in the coming financial year, and what can we expect in the following year? In other words, is the stated intention to withdraw the £904 million a threat or a firm promise?
As someone with responsibility for presenting the Isle of Wight county council's budget, I can say that that authority is extremely grateful for a generous transport supplementary grant offer. It hopes to take up that offer in full, despite revenue implications of about £365,000, which represents nearly a 3p rate. The county council has received a generous transport supplementary grant, and it would be foolhardy if it failed to accept it.
I hope that the Government will soon recognise our soundly based representations for help to reduce the crushing burden of our ferry costs, which are unique in the United Kingdom as they are in no way subsidised. Umpteen delegations have met Ministers and many letters have been written. There have been helpful noises from both parties. When the Labour Party was in office, the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) tried to help. Equally, I shall never forget the speech made by the new Secretary of State for Defence when he was in opposition. Despite all that, nothing has happened.
I am prepared to say "Thank you" inasmuch as our pleas have been partially conceded. I should like to hear some reciprocation from Ministers, because until today most of them have come to the Dispatch Box and denigrated local authorities and the nationalised industries. The Secretary of State for Transport was at it only yesterday when he called for the privatisation of British Rail catering facilities, yet any fair-minded Member knows that British Rail has in recent years made great strides to improve that service.
It may be that Ministers spend too much time in their black limousines—certainly the Prime Minister does. I merely ask them to look at Waterloo and at the catering transformation that has occurred there over the past few years.
The same is true of local government. Too rarely is there a kind word for it, with the possible exception of Kent county council. It seems that if one serves on that authority one can run a garden centre in Liverpool or even take over the Bank of England. The vast majority of councillors and local government officers are doing their best, often under difficult circumstances and extreme pressures from outside groups, to honour central Government diktat. All too often all they get for their pains is a slap in the face. The previous Secretary of State for the Environment was a pastmaster at the game. I hope that that will now stop, or no one worthwhile will take on the job of councillor.
According to the Tories, the blue-eyed authority is Birmingham, but, as the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) clearly demon-strated, it has not worked any particular miracles. Indeed, what it is now doing with its waste disposal services, many councils, including my own, did months or years previously. Birmingham has had a cracking good settlement and probably had some damned good balances. As a result, it has been able to make a cut in its assessment for next year. Moreover, Birmingham was well managed under Labour, and its leader Clive Wilkinson, was a capable former chairman of CoSIRA. It does not help when this sort of tit-for-tat takes place, because Birmingham has had a well-run administration for many years.
No hon. Member is ever likely to praise a Liberal-controlled authority—not even the right hon. Member fo Ardwick—because that is not the done thing in two-party confrontation politics. I put on record my appreciation of the success that has been achieved by the six authorities under Liberal control. It is quite untrue to suggest that where Liberals are in control the rates have soared. The opposite is the case. This year, my own authority is likely to keep its increase below 6 per cent., and the borough of Medina, also under Liberal control, will probably impose no increase at all, despite the extra demands that we face from the problems of increasing old age and Government legislation.
We should like to help small businesses and industrialists who may wish to convert empty premises that cannot be refurbished or let. We should like to de-rate for longer than three months. That costs money, and if the Government are not prepared to make a contribution we must seriously consider whether such a move would be fair to others. In my constituency, an extra 1,000 adults each year reach retirement age. The burdens falling on our

social services are becoming acute and the resources to deal with them are inadequate. We are, I regret, still below GRE on their service.
On 9 December, I received a reply from the Secretary of State to my request for extra financial assistance within the rate support grant to refund the extra local government costs involved in implementing the provision of the Social Security and Housing Benefits Act 1982. I got a raspberry in reply—no increase in expenditure was likely. This measure is likely to cost my authority an extra £28,000 a year, which I am told represents £50 million, or 350 extra staff, in local government as a whole.
The county treasurer of a large Conservative-controlled council not far from my shores recently wrote:
The whole wretched scheme is horribly complex and from the point of view of the public sector employer a total waste of time".
The local authorities will have to bear these extra burdens. My own authority will have to spend £2,000 to provide a secure cupboard for records to satisfy the insurers. Such things are constantly passed down the line from central Government to local government, and local government is then ticked off for imposing extra demands on the ratepayers.
Between 1976 and 1981 when the retail price index went up 85·1 per cent. and total central Government expenditure went up 130 per cent.—it went up 110 per cent. if we exclude social security payments—local government expenditure went up by only 77 per cent. That is not a bad record. I accept that savings could still be made if only the Government would listen to common sense.
It is rumoured that the days of the metropolitan counties may be numbered. There may be justification for that. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) is nodding his head. I am sorry that the Secretary of State has left. The Department could help my constituency immediately by allowing the three councils in the Isle of Wight to merge into one all-purpose authority. As the Member of Parliament for the area and leader of the county council, I am driven up the wall trying to settle who will pay planning fees and whether south Wight will have the same housing policy as Medina. If there were a referendum on the subject, we would win hands down. I should be surprised if more than 10 per cent. of my constituents would vote against the proposal.
Apparently we shall have to wait until 1984 at the earliest for a review of local government structure under the Local Government Act 1972. Indeed, it will probably be 1990 before we can do anything about it. That will be abolutely ghastly. I ask the Secretary of State to let us do something about it now. We have gone part of the way by sharing facilities, setting up joint committees, and so on. That is not good enough. We shall not get things settled satisfactorily until we are given the sort of authority which we begged for when the former county council, of which I was a member, made representations to the Maud committee which considered the subject of local government in the early 1970s. I plead with the Secretary of State to give us the opportunity to streamline local authority organisation in the Isle of Wight now and thus save ratepayers money.

Mr. Robin Squire: It is unfortunate when, in the main debate of the day, the first Back-Bench Member speaks at about 6.30. I am sure that my observation will be noted in the appropriate quarter.
In his absence, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on his elevation. I speak not just as one of his many colleagues but as a member of the Environment Select Committee which no doubt ensures that he and I will continue to have contact for a considerable time. He has acquired a justifiable reputation in the House for being fair-minded and persuasive. No doubt he will need and hold on to those abilities in the ensuing years in his new post.
No attention has been given to the desperate position in which the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) finds himself, shorn, so to speak, of his rival. The right hon. Gentleman has built a mini-career on the activities, fact or fiction, of my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). Now he stands deprived of his main target. We should have sympathy for him in this pantomime season. He is like a beanstalk without an ogre or a Jane without a Tarzan.
I should like to concentrate first on the aspects of the 1983–84 settlement as they affect my own London borough of Havering and welcome unreservedly the decision to stagger the holdback arrangements for penalties. A deputation from Havering—myself joined by my hon. Friends the Members for Upminster (Mr. Loveridge) and for Romford (Mr. Neubert)—went to see my right hon. Friend a short time ago. We made the point forcefully that if there were not a staggered penalty system it would be grossly unfair for local authorities which overspent marginally and thus had to pay the full cost as opposed to a more modest contribution for a small overspend. I am delighted that the Government have seen fit to bring in that adjustment.
Even if I put to one side my own authority's position, there must be other authorities which because of that decision have a greater incentive to come down from a considerable overspend to a marginal overspend. Previously there was no incentive for them to do anything about it. To that extent also there must be a gain.
The settlement has been described as an increase of 4 per cent. on the 1982–83 budget. I am reminded that on these matters we can describe the same thing in different ways. The settlement for my local authority, for instance, for 1983–84 as advised by the Department of the Environment is £41·3 million. It is assumed that all authorities are spending on target and there is no provision for any grant shortfall, although in practice we know that there will be adjustments later. The figure for 1982–83 notified at the same stage by the Department of the Environment was £40·9 million, which was subsequently reduced by £400,000.
On that basis my authority, which for many years complied with the wishes of successive Governments regardless of political persuasion, is getting an increase of just 1 per cent. in cash terms. I underline that point because, as every hon. Member will appreciate, it is impossible even in the best-run authority to have anything other than further savings, further cutbacks and further retrenchments if the settlement is just 1 per cent. more in cash terms than that of the previous year.
The third detailed aspect of the settlement to which I wish to refer before turning to other matters is the removal of the concession to those authorities which spent above target and below their grant-related expenditure assess-ment figure. My borough has not had any benefit in this context because we are not structured in such a way that we can be affected, so my observations are made from the point of view of a Member of Parliament who is not and cannot be affected by the removal of the concession.
It seems unfair and unfortunate that the effect of removing the concession is to strengthen further the targets which are themselves merely an extension based on past expenditure at the cost of reducing the impact of grant-related expenditure assessments. As I shall show later, I am not suggesting that the latter should be elevated to such a status that they become tablets of stone, so to speak, but if there is to be a distinction between the two one would have thought that it should be shaded towards the measured grant-related expenditure assessments which have been arrived at by the most modern, up-to-date bases of measuring need inasmuch as one can do that from the centre, as we are regularly and rightly told. I am sorry that the removal of the concession means that the emphasis has shifted back more to the targets which ultimately were arbitrarily based on the outturn of a particular year suitably uprated.
The performance of the Greater London Council is never far from the minds of all those who live in and represent areas in greater London. Lest Opposition Members assume that I am about to launch into a predictable tirade against the GLC, I point out that I remain of the belief that there is a function for a regional authority, as I have said a number of times. It is therefore doubly sad for someone like myself, holding these views, to watch some of the things that have been taking place on the other side of the river.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Who does my hon. Friend think should have the pleasure of paying for yet another layer of local government—ratepayers or the central Government taxpayer?

Mr. Squire: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who studies these things but who has anticipated by five minutes and no more, I assure him, my conclusion on that matter. If he will bear with me, I shall undoubtedly deal with the point. Whether my answer is to my hon. Friend's satisfaction will be for him to decide.
There is a function for a regional authority. I become increasingly depressed, however, about aspects of that authority. I shall not produce a long catalogue. I shall concentrate on one area that has received rather less attention than most. I refer to the proposals that have been circulated covering so-called good employer practice. In a CBI release, Mr. Bill Doughty, chairman of the CBI's London region, states how damaging the proposals of the GLC could prove to be. The CBI release states:
Mr. Doughty accuses the GLC of trying to assume the functions of Government agencies such as the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission, and says that the Council should not be dabbling in such areas, as it lacks competence in them, and would in any case be duplicating effort. The GLC, he says, should concentrate its efforts on what should be its prime aim—of providing cost effective services to the residents and ratepayers of London. He warns that suppliers to the GLC would be deterred from tendering for contracts by the prospect of increased administrative costs of compliance, by


uncertainty about how the Compliance Unit would exercise its discretion, and by the unclear legal status of some of the proposals".
That is one area. There are many things that the GLC could, and should, be doing and that it has been elected to do. Every time that it starts to involve itself in these other costly administrative, bureaucratic and overlapping areas, it is doing a disservice to the people of London.
I wish now to deal with the kernel of the discussion on rate support grant and financing. In passing, I trust that I shall answer the interjection of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) I wish to examine the proportion of expenditure that is now met by the Government. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) pointed out that, under this Government, it has fallen from 61 per cent. to 52·8 per cent. overall on today's figures, although, as he also pointed out, that is in advance. The figure is bound to be reduced once the holdback provisions are known. It may well fall below 50 per cent.
Perversely, I do not regard that as a bad sign. The long-term future for local government is that it should increasingly not be reliant upon central Government support and that it should fund itself from own local sources. The more that central Governmet pays to local government the more, in practice, it will invariably call the tune. I am happy, at the first leg, to see a reduction.
There is, however, a big "but". One cannot divorce the reduction from the consequential effect on the far too narrow base of ratepayers that now exists. It is impossible to expect, if this progression continued and central Government support fell to 40 per cent. or less, that ratepayers, particularly business ratepayers, would be able to afford the consequential increase that would be entailed. When one takes into account the relative unfairness of releasing many income tax payers who do not pay rates from the responsibility for higher contributions to local government services, it becomes even more obvious. This underlines the need for alternative finance to spread the load.
The Environment Select Committee on which I have the privilege to sit published a report a few months ago. Hon. Members will be relieved to know that I do not intend to quote from it at length. It seems to me, however, that the Committee faced up to the problem and produced a number of interesting proposals. It recognised, in particular, that if this alternative finance is to be provided, it is likely to be based on some form of local income tax. The details can obviously be discussed on another occasion.
Armed with a new local tax—this is one proposal on which the Committee did not agree but which I feel free to put forward—it would be possible to transfer non-domestic rates from local government to central Government where, in any event, the issue more naturally belongs as a major part of economic planning. We are talking of substantial figures. Any Government are bound to be concerned with the health and wealth of limited companies and corporations that provide employment. Those aims cannot be achieved until we have an alternative source of funding.
We cannot continue to reduce the percentage Government grant unless we provide the alternative finance. Despite preferring grant-related expenditure

assessments to targets, I remain of the belief—perhaps it is increasingly old-fashioned—that a system of control that does not rely on individual council-by-council control would be infinitely better and would not involve so many people spending so many hours in working out the complexities, as demonstrated amply by the right hon. Member for Ardwick. Ultimately, control of local authority behaviour and performance is more likely to be created and granted by the local electorate bringing pressure to bear than by Governments of whatever persuasion. Until and unless we can get that equation right and more naturally link and identify those who pay for Government services and local government services with those who benefit from them, we shall continue to face this impossible problem from year to year.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has gone on record as saying that he believes in greater local democracy. I support him wholeheartedly. I trust and hope that during the years that he holds this office—we look ahead beyond mere elections—he will have the opportunity to demonstrate the reality behind that statement and bring about the greater democracy that he and I support.

Mr. Ken Eastham: Before my election to this House, I served for many years in local government. I am constantly disappointed when I hear Ministers make all kinds of jaundiced claims about local government. There appears to me often to be a campaign of hate against local government and the services and responsibilities that local authorities try to fulfil for the community. One often hears glib assertions from the Government Front Bench about "big spenders". Such assertions are usually accompanied by a reference to inner cities and the large authorities, such as my own city of Manchester. It is about time that some of these charges were put in perspective. We should knock down some of the half-truths that have to be constantly endured during these debates.
There is no doubt that inner cities are confronted by special problems. When there is decline in population and slum clearance, one also has to consider the consequences of lower rate income for the inner cities. There is usually also a high proportion of pensioners who need the support of local agencies provided by the local authority. This has never been recognised by the Government.
The inner cities are often expected to provide services from which surrounding authorities take the benefit. I remember some years ago an estate agent advertised his houses as having low rates but being near enough to Manchester to take advantage of the benefit of the provisions made by the city.
I should like to cite one or two examples to reinforce my defence of the inner cities and to show some of the problems. Recently, hospitals were on the agenda during Question Time and reference was made to hospitals of excellence. I referred to the plastic surgery, micro-surgery and cancer hospitals in Manchester, and quoted the example of Christie's hospital—perhaps the most famous hospital in Britain for cancer treatment.
I have spoken to the chief social services officer, who made some comparisons. He said that, of the patients attending Christie's, about 93 per cent. were from outside the city. However, he is expected to provide all the hospital social workers. That is an illustration of the large


financial burden placed on the ratepayers of Manchester. The big hospitals—Christie's, the Manchester royal infirmary and Wythenshawe—will need social workers, the cost of whom have been estimated at approximately £1·5 million, which cost will be placed on inner city Manchester rates.
Does the Minister consider that this is overspending? It is reasonable for me to ask him this question and to expect some kind of answer. Will the Minister abolish the services, or will he consider special funding for these necessary services, the cost of which is unfairly placed on Manchester? I can give numerous other examples of services, such as the libraries and the university with all its special needs, paid for by the city of Manchester.
Earlier in the debate the Minister referred to education and falling rolls. It is about time that we attempted to nail this theory, because it is not as simple as he will insist it is. For instance, if there were a fall in numbers of 1,000, we could not simply say that is equivalent to a high school and we can close one high school. Falling rolls are usually spread right across the city and are interspersed through classes. Two or three children may be left in a class, but that does not mean that one can close the class.
There is another problem with small children. It is not easy to close infant or primary schools, even if there are small numbers. There is a special problem about the distances that mothers will need to take these toddlers to school. One cannot close schools on the basis of a simple formula or arithmetical analysis. The Minister is dishonest to speak in this way.
We must recognise that local government is labour intensive. The Minister may be bold enough to say that it is great to reduce the number of staff, but that produces unemployment. Manchester has massive unemployment—some of the highest in the country. We would simply be removing people from doing vital and useful jobs for the community through local government and putting them in the dole queue. As I understand it, every time a working man is put in the dole queue, it costs the Government about £5,000 a year. That is crackpot economics.
Year after year since 1979 the Government have reduced financial support for local government. The reduction is 5·6 per cent. in real terms, as against the 1979 figures. We can already witness major deterioration in the provisions made by the city of Manchester. If one drives through Manchester, one sees the potholes and missing street lights. All these things require maintenance, because they are a safety hazard. That is the problem that we have in Manchester, and I am sure that city is not unique.
I have already mentioned the problems of education, social services and a high proportion of old-age pensioners making legitimate demands on local government agencies. There is also the acute problem of housing maintenance. Even owner-occupiers recognise that it is wise housekeeping to paint their homes and to keep up the repairs. There is now an acute problem, with thousands of council homes urgently needing major maintenance. The problem is deteriorating, not getting better. If the Minister puts through the reduction that he is swanking about today, it will mean a further aggravation of the problem and more deterioration.

Dr. Keith Hampson: What about Birmingham?

Mr. Eastham: I am surprised that the hon. Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson) speaks of Birmingham after my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) has already dealt with that city.
Let us consider local government and its efficiency. We know that local government is far more efficient than central Government. The targets that the Government are demanding from local government are far harsher than the targets that they expect from central Government. It is useful to compare expenditure between local and central Government.
Taking 1976 as 100 for central and local government, by the time that we get to 1982 central Government expenditure has risen from 100 to 108 whereas local government expenditure has gone down from 100 to 80. How can we talk about the inefficiencies of local government when we know that this is a fact? We have to listen to special money orders being presented annually because of massive overspending by the Government.
To add to the worsening of the problems of inner cities—I am trying to illustrate some real problems in places such as Manchester, because Manchester is often referred to—the Government have decided to punish the inner cities by reducing grants.
Assisted area status has been removed, despite the loss of jobs and industry. While, in desperation the city is trying to encourage industry, jobs and self-sufficiency, the Government are penalising it by taking away that assistance.
This is not just a case of cuts. The Government are carrying out a vendetta against local authorities. I wish to place on record my strongest protest at the constant half-truths when charges are made against local government. We know full well that local government should be accusing the Government.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: My principal complaint about the grant settlement can be summed up concisely. It is that no steps have been taken to reform local government finance, principally because of the mischievous and ill-informed report of the Select Committee on the Environment, which was probably the greatest single instrument in preventing the reform of local government finance from appearing in this Session's legislative programme.

Mr. Squire: It would be unfair to debate the issues of the report, so all I shall say is that if my hon. Friend believes that the Select Committee on the Environment has that much influence on the Government, he believes a jolly sight more than the members of the Committee, separately or collectively.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: My hon. Friend is entitled to that view, but it is difficult for a Government to introduce a Bill in the face of the sort of report that was produced by that Select Committee before the matter had even been debated in the House. Let me give one example of the folly embodied in that report. To say that there is no strong movement in Britain in favour of rate reform solely on the ground of a speech by a completely ill-informed peer is the most unsubstantiated and foolish proposition that it is possible to remember ever being embodied in a Select Committee's report. I leave it to my hon. Friend to reflect on that.
The Government now face a position in which all the commercial and industrial ratepayers have no vote, and are therefore not an effective brake on local government expenditure, and where only a small minority of domestic voters pay the local government tax. That is a real problem. However, I do not regard that as a justification for reducing the percentage of the tax burden that is arrived at by the relatively fair system of taxation.
If Government taxation is not a relatively fair system, the Government have no one to blame but themselves. Every year in the Finance Bill the Chancellor of the Exchequer puts before the House what he believes to be the fairest way of raising money to finance Government expenditure. Therefore, to reduce the percentage of local government expenditure that is financed in that way and to increase the percentage that is financed in a demonstrably unfair way is a thoroughly retrograde step in Government policy for which the Minister now carries responsibility, even though it properly belongs on the shoulders of my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), because of the gestation period of these events. Be that as it may, I cannot accept that this is either prudent or just policy.
Another consideration is that by basing the targets on the historic pattern of expenditure the Government are penalising those local authorities which have been particularly economical in the past. Not only is that inherently unjust; it is in many cases inherently unwise. If, in the past, in response to Government appeals for economy in local government expenditure, for example, road maintenance has been cut to the bone, to ask for further reductions not only can, but does, result in the break-up of the substructure of roads. It will cost far more to reconstruct roads than to keep them in a reasonable state of repair. That is not just a theoretical consideration; it is happening in Devon.
Devon is a good example of a low-spending county which has been consistently economical in its public expenditure, as have many of the district councils. To treat its low past expenditure as a base on which to assess what it should be spending now is to penalise past economy rather than to reward it. That is neither just nor good public policy.
I have nothing but a welcome for the departure of the old system of assessing local government needs before GREA. It was a fiddler's symphony—there is no other description for the sheer political fiddling that went on when the Labour party came to power, in favour of, for instance, Wales and urban areas. Devon lost about £48 million, filched away during the years of the Labour Government. The formula was fiddled in a way which was not rational, and which could not be and never was explained. That, among other things, has contributed to the historically low expenditure of Devon—a county with far more than the national average of old people, because people tend to retire there, and with the highest mileage per head of unclassified road of any county in England.
My major criticisms are, first, that it is wrong to reduce the percentage of Government contribution to local government expenditure, having failed to grasp the nettle of rate reform. Even reducing that percentage will not have the effect which the Ministers want it to have, because it is still as true afterwards as it was before that only a small minority of the local government electorate will be directly

affected by it. There will still be a majority of the local government electorate not directly affected by rate increases. That is why it will not even be an effective means of doing what the Government wish to do. Unfortunately, representations to Ministers—particularly Ministers who are not in the House of Commons—prove remarkably unfruitful in that regard.
I well remember the previous Secretary of State for the Environment, who has now been translated to the Ministry of Defence, asserting that under the new system counties and districts that were economical and kept within their budgets would not be penalised by the overspending of profligate local authorities. I commended that fair and reasonable proposition. However, I cannot commend the failure to abide by it. It is undeniable that there has been a clawback. Economic local authorities have had to pay for the overspending of profligate authorities. That is contrary to the previous Secretary of State's statement of Government policy. That is not only unjust and contrary to his declared policy, but makes accurate expenditure control impossible.
The clawback is an unknown amount and it is impossible to budget for it, because it is based on the expenditure performance of others. In any case, there are many things that are outside a local authority's control. For example, if there is an increase in fuel tax, the cost of transporting children to school in a widespread county council area will increase through no fault of the local education authority. The cost of running local government welfare services will also increase where driving is involved. Such increases in expenditure are outside the county council's control. Many matters are outside its control. However, it is undeniable that many factors are much more within its control than it used to be fashionable to believe.
I have already alluded to the fact that the target figures are wrongly based. If they are laid down by the Government, a council does not even know whether it can spend the target sum, because of the clawback provisions. Therefore, clawback should be abolished for those authorities that do not exceed their grant-related expenditure or their target. The disparity between the grant-related expenditure assessment and the target—due to using the wrong historic basis in the first place—and the penalising of low rather than the high spenders adds to the practical problems of those local authorities that endeavour to stay within their targets.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) pointed out, in a speech that had considerable analytic merit, the contrary effect of over-budgeting to attract more favourable treatment from central Government. That makes it all the more difficult for those local authorities that are economic by habit and by necessity. Many of them represent areas in which average earnings are well below the national average and in which the cost of living is much higher than the national average, because of the high cost of transport to work and to the shops, and because fuel costs are higher in the outer areas than in the central areas of Britain. The same is often true of food prices. It is a myth that food costs less in the rural areas than in the great conurbations. Huge quantities of food are sent to the conurbations, and because of the economies of scale the unit cost is considerably lower.
Housing costs in rural areas are sometimes much higher than in urban areas. When those living in large industrial conurbations retire, they often roll over the capital from


selling their houses and put the money into cottages in what they consider to be holiday areas. However, to others, those areas are their working and living environment. As a result, prices are forced up out of the reach of those on lower than average incomes.
The local authorities that face such problems tend to have lower expenditure patterns than those without such problems. That is why it is wrong for central Government to take past performance and to reduce the target for a local authority's expenditure, as if its needs were less because its means are less.
That mistake is sometimes made in other areas of policy and politics. To say that needs are less because expenditure is less is to stand cause and effect on its head, where expenditure is less because the means to expand are less. Therefore, the gravamen of my message is that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues in the Department of the Environment are a long way from getting things right. The position is not very commendable, but it has been grossly aggravated by reducing the percentage paid by central Government under a formula that is highly unsatisfactory and by leaving in existence a local government financing system which the Government do not consider to be either just or acceptable. Neither do I.

Mr. Stuart Holland: We have heard a speech of amazing complacency from the Secretary of State for the Environment as he takes his first confident steps in his new kingdom. It was clearly part and parcel of the Government's prejudice against public spending and welfare, which still assumes that public expenditure drains, rather than sustains, the private sector. But it also was clear evidence of the Government's total disarray over central and local expenditure targets.
The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) have put the anomalies and contradictions of the situation well. It is, indeed, an indictment when the Financial Times of 17 January mentions the targets and penalties and observes:
Even if all councils met the targets, the erratic and contradictory method of allocating central Government grant means that about 80 of the 414 local authorities would still need rate rises of 10 per cent. or more—double the government target for 1983 inflation.
The article rightly points out that places such as Liverpool, Bedfordshire and my borough, Lambeth, could achieve hefty rate cuts if they could make the enormous spending cuts required to hit the target, but that they would need large rate increase just to maintain existing spending levels. In the case of Lambeth, the rate increase that would be necessary is about 25 per cent.
The Secretary of State reeled off to the House the increases that are being imposed by allegedly irresponsible local authorities as if those increases have nothing to do with the penalties that are being imposed. In effect, they amount to £1 of cuts for £1 of—not over-spending—but maintenance of the existing levels of goods and services, or £1 million of penalties for every £1 million over the limit.
The situation is especially serious in inner city boroughs such as Lambeth, which has one of the highest unemployment levels in the south-east of England—as high as 22·1 per cent. male unemployment in parts of the borough, a higher rate among school leavers and higher still among black school leavers.
The Secretary of State argues as though responsibility in public spending is defined by what one can cut or what one cannot spend, without looking at the use value of local services. For example, we have a severe situation in my own constituency of Vauxhall, as regards social services, where it is not at all clear that the local authority can maintain its statutory obligation of protecting the interests of children who are at risk.
I have recently had a case of a single parent—a man—who has been victimised on other grounds by neighbours and has twice been viciously attacked. He is fighting to preserve what remains of his family—two charming young children who are still bright and alert. He lacks furniture and the children lack books and toys. On the supplementary benefits application, which is not directly within the purview of the local authority, he can gain only the barest minimum for basic furniture and equipment. In the key area of social services, where that man needs help, he cannot get attention or the moral and psychological encouragement of talking through his problems. He cannot get assistance even in applying for his basic rights, because we do not have the social services staff to help him out.
I take another case of an elderly constituent who came to this country from Austria before the war to escape Nazism. She told me recently that for most of the time in which she had been in this country she considered herself fortunate to have escaped the holocaust in central Europe. Now an elderly woman in her eighties, she says that she would rather be dead than carry on living as she is. Her home help visits have been cut. She now gets home help only twice a week. The local facilities to assist her on the estate are very inadequate. The programme for the sheltered accommodation that she has been promised has been put back year after year after year. She is frightened, apprehensive and worried, even about the use of electrical equipment in her flat.
This woman's judgment of her own life and her own tragedy are an indictment of this Government, an indictment of a policy that assumes that it is better not to spend or to cut spending than to provide a social service. It is in a real sense a test of whether a country is civilised that it should, in effect, put profits before people in these cases.
In the example of housing, a young couple recently came to my weekly advice surgery saying that they had been assured that there was no hope of being housed at any time by Lambeth council because of the need to give priority to the homeless and to other social categories of greater need. I looked into the case to see whether there was some possibility of their being allocated a property that they might do up themselves—they had the skills to do it—but they did not have enough joint income to purchase a property of their own. I am afraid that the reply from the council confirmed my suspicions that there was almost no hope whatever.
How can these people understand that the cuts in the housing investment programme and in the rate support grant so drastically affect their housing prospects? Many of them are beginning to realise, and one thing that has encouraged them to see what the Government are doing has been the transfer of housing from the GLC to the local authorities, which is again part of the strategic onslaught of the Government against what they regard as over-large and unnecessary local authorities.
In Lambeth, when I became a Member of the House, we used to move about 2,500 individuals or families out each year to outer London boroughs, through the strategic housing role of the Greater London authorities. That has now virtually come to a halt. The inter-borough nomination scheme—the bilateral application on behalf of the tenant to move from one borough to another—is rightly seen as a no-hope situation, as a closed door, by my constituents. When they apply to the outer London boroughs, those boroughs have no desire to take responsibility for them. The result is that many people, old and young, in an inner London borough such as Lambeth have moved from low hope to no hope. That is the social cost of these cuts and restraints in Government spending.
I urge the attention of the Secretary of State and all Members on the Government Front Bench to a warning that they seem to have chosen to ignore. It was the warning given by Lord Scarman in his report on the Brixton disorders, which occurred on the edge of my constituency and literally within a few hundred or thousand yards of several of the people to whom I have just referred. He said that homelessness was one of the three main underlying factors in the disturbances. That cannot be strongly enough stressed, nor does it seem to be part of the consciousness of the Government.
Most people are aware that Lord Scarman claimed that policing tactics were a major item in the disturbances, as was the underlying unemployment. But the third factor that he cited was homelessness. That homelessness is a scandal when at present there are more than one-third of a million houses in the Greater London area that either lack a basic amenity or need major modernisation or repair.
It is also surprising that the Government seem to believe—it was echoed by the Secretary of State earlier today—that there is a Manichaean division in the economy, that private spending is good and public spending is bad and that the two never meet. I took the trouble to note some of the words used by the Secretary of State. When I intervened—I was grateful to him for giving way—he chose to say that economic matters were for yesterday's debate.
If the Secretary of State carries on thinking that economic matters are for yesterday's debate, it is time that he learnt to give certain messages to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not only so that the Chancellor gets it right on the day, but so that he can fulfil some of his own responsibilities as Secretary of State for the Environment.
The right hon. Gentleman said that there had been four years of pressure on local councils, that the Government had to cope with the strains of uncontrolled spending, and that the Government would "encourage further restraint." Why this restraint? Why these cuts? The right hon. Gentleman added, "The central concern"—of the Government—"must remain the enormous influence that local government expenditure has in the economy as a whole." We then heard the quantitative argument. The Secretary of State said that local government expenditure amounted to about £22 billion and that the Government must set some boundaries to it. He followed up with the argument of the international arena. He said:
Together with virtually every other major industrial nation, we have tried to reduce spending on consumption".
He claimed that as if it was a self-evident merit in either the central or local economy.
The facts which the Secretary of State is unwilling to admit are elementary. One country's imports are another country's exports. If each Government seek to cut public spending, whether regionally, locally or in health or social services to reduce imports, they are contracting other country's exports and thereby deepening the world slump.
There are two ways of approaching the argument. One is to look at the actual forecasts that are coming out of organisations such as the OECD and the EC. The Government are expecting some kind of upturn, although they are certainly not promising to channel resources from that upturn into local authorities in inner city areas. It is part of their economic brutalism to turn their face from inner city communities.
In reality, in their own interest, they should take note of the fact that unemployment in western Europe today is already around 11½ million and is likely to be more than 20 million in 10 years' time if the slump continues. They should note that there is a joint interest for exporters, for employers, for inner city employment and the generation of jobs in local areas through a reflation of world trade. This is an approach which the Prime Minister rejects and the Chancellor of the Exchequer rejects, but which the Secretary of State for the Environment, who has a reputation for being a shrewd and astute man, should realise is crucial and central to his interest.
I invite the right hon. Gentleman to sponsor a conference in this country of Secretaries of State for regional and local government, or his equivalents in various countries, to consider whether it serves their joint interests—if they are trying to provide viable local communities in a civilised environment—to endorse, as Ministers of Governments, policies of beggar-my-neighbour deflation.
The Secretary of State chose to refer to France. The reality is that when the French ran into difficulties with reflationary policies, which is not in dispute, the country which mainly benefited from that reflation was West Germany. That actually means that jobs are preserved in areas such as Stuttgart or Dusseldorf or other urban areas. Rates and local taxes are thereby paid by people in employment which can be recycled into the economy. The same obtains for this country with regard to trade with other countries.
If this lesson is not learnt, if the gap which at present exists between the Secretary of State's thinking and the Government's thinking on this matter cannot be bridged, the grave crisis at present registered in inner city areas will become generalised. We have already seen major disorders in Brixton. We are likely to see other disorders as well. I give that warning with no enthusiasm. But the fact is that the Government, by their policies, are not only increasing social tension in inner city areas, but are undermining the economic fabric of the regions and country at the same time.
This matter will be settled either by them before the election or at the ballot box, or, again, on the streets. The Secretary of State must take responsibility for this. It is no good sending busloads of bankers around inner city areas or expressing the hope and intention that regeneration will occur, unless he takes on board the central economic argument concerning public expenditure. Public expenditure sustains the private sector—it does not drain it.
I shall leave the Secretary of State with one fact gained from a parliamentary question that I put to his predecessor about the proportion of council housing in England and


Wales that was provided by direct labour organisations of local councils rather than by private contractors. The proportion was 7 per cent. In Scotland it was even lower, at only 3 per cent. That means that for every £100 of public expenditure cuts on council house building—housing starts are down to less than a fifth today of what they were in 1979—£93 in England and Wales and £97 in Scotland is taken away from private contractors. That is the basic circularity of income in the economy which Keynes argued and which the Government have dismissed as if not only Keynes but argument were totally dead.
We need to go beyond Keynesian policies. We need not only to reflate the economy but to restructure our inner city areas and redistribute resources. If the Government cannot grasp that message, they cannot be surprised at the protest that will again occur. It may be at the ballot box, but, regrettably, it may again be on the streets of our inner cities.

Mr. W. Benyon: I would have listened with a little more sympathy to the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) if he had acknowledged in the slightest degree the role that local government can play in the encouragement of business and commerce. In the London borough of Camden there is considerable concern about the flight of business and commerce from the borough. Things are changing as a result. We have heard today that Camden is keeping its rates level even though it receives no rate support grant.
I was grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for his remarks about the problems of Buckinghamshire, which is by far the most rapidly growing area in Britain. This is exemplified by the fact that in a few weeks, on 15 February, I shall represent 128,000 constituents. I sincerely hope that the Boundary Commmission is not too far away.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Voters or constituents?

Mr. Benyon: Voters.
In the debate on this subject on 16 February last year I intervened to ask the then Secretary of State for an assurance that the particular problem which affects Buckinghamshire—the rapid increase in population—would be dealt with in time for this year's assessment. It is that assessment which we are discussing today. The problem has not been solved. As a result, an unfair burden has been placed on my constituents and the ratepayers of the county as a whole.
In that debate, the Secretary of State, in reply to me, said:
Next year the census results will be coming on stream. We shall incorporate those figures next year. If there are authorities whose population growth was underestimated before the census, the new figures will be fairer to them."—[Official Report, 16 February 1982; Vol. 18, c. 161.]
What in fact has happened? The target of £187 million which has been fixed for Buckinghamshire is a 4 per cent. increase on the current year's budget. Therefore, it relates to the old pre-census population of 543,000.
This year the county council will have to provide services for 593,000 people, an increase of 50,000, which is equivalent to the population of a medium-sized town. The post-census figure of 571,000 has been used for grant-related expenditure. It is the registrar's general estimate of the county's population in June 1981, but is 20,000 short

of the actual population. That has resulted in the GRE figure being increased from its current £181 million to £194 million. Even though that is still an underestimate, it is a much better indicator than anything else of the problems facing the county administrators and of the services that they must provide.
In the current year we have had the option of choosing the target or the GRE figure, whichever was the higher. That option does not exist for the next financial year. I understand my right hon. Friend's dilemma. He must have either the target or the GRE. The option was a bad system because it was difficult to divide the total and keep within the overall figures. If he chose GRE rather than target, it would be fairer for areas such as Buckinghamshire, but others would be severely penalised. To help one, he must penalise another.
As has already been said in the debate, it is an intensely complicated business. I doubt whether one elector in 10 in my constituency understands it. Putting the matter in its starkest possible simplicity which people could understand, if there were no penalties this year Buckinghamshire could provide its existing standard of services—with no improvements whatever—with no increase in the rates. However, that level of expenditure incurs a substantial penalty. Therefore, the council is faced with a quandary: does it reduce the services to a level that I believe is below the statutory requirements, or does it meet the penalty by raising additional rates? It has opted for the latter. Therefore, the additional burden that will be placed upon the ratepayers for the forthcoming year will be used exclusively to meet the penalty.
I can put a further gloss on the matter. If the population is rising relatively slowly and is spread throughout an administrative area, it is possible to "stretch" the services. For example, it is possible for an existing fire station to deal with additional houses without increasing the size of the station or the number of staff employed. However, when the increase is as fast as it is in Buckinghamshire, and where it occurs in a wholly new environment, that option is not open. New facilities must be provided and new staff engaged—in many cases before there is any comparable rise in rate income. That is the nub of the problem, and the position will become progressively worse if this system continues.
If Buckinghamshire were at the end of its expansion, or near it, the problem would still exist but would be containable. But our expansion will continue for many years to come, and it will do so under its own private enterprise momentum. That is why we are producing a better environment and better society than the areas referred to by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland). It is a substantial momentum.

Mr. Stuart Holland: I am trying to find some plausibility in the hon. Gentleman's argument. Will he explain from where that upturn will come when the Government are axing public spending in the economy as a whole? Who will buy the goods and with what?

Mr. Benyon: Buckinghamshire is creating a large number of jobs each year through private enterprise. We are going out of our way to encourage that. If the hon. Gentleman had landed at London airport recently, he would have seen written across the underpass the words "You have arrived in the United Kingdom. Why not come to Milton Keynes?" We are proud of that commercial angle, which has been so successful.
The momentum is there. If the depression ends, the momentum will redouble. Those whom we are accommodating, especially in Milton Keynes, come from London and other urban areas. They are not only young families with children, but the elderly who have connections with people already there. The disabled and others requiring hospital and welfare care have also come, so we are relieving the Ken Livingstones of this world of their problems but are not being given a sufficiently fair allocation of resources in return.
I have always accepted—whether it be in connection with the sale of council houses or other matters in local government—that the Government are the guardians of the taxpayers' money, subject to the control of Parliament, and are perfectly entitled to distribute that money as they think fit. Likewise, local authorities are the guardians of the ratepayers' money and must take the consequences of what they do. Rates in themselves are not inflationary. Rate income must match the rate-borne expenditure. I accept that high local taxes are a grave disincentive to industry and commerce. That was the subject of the intervention of the hon. Member for Vauxhall. However, it is a factor that local authorities must take into account and for which they must answer to their electors. The electors are not fools. They know that high rates are driving out industry and commerce. They feel strongly about it, especially in times of high unemployment.
I understand only too well the Secretary of State's problem. Although I believe that he could make adjustments even at this late hour outside the rate support grant settlement, I understand the difficulties. I am speaking in the debate because I am concerned about the future. The targets worked out on the present basis are clearly unfair. The one point on which I agree with the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) is that it is an intensely complicated system. We want a simple system that we can understand and make our decisions accordingly.
As mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), one of the dangers of the target system is that no sane local authority would spend below target. All authorities will spend to target and will never allow themselves to get into the present position again. Adjustments must be made in future assessments. I beg my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consider the problem carefully, since otherwise we shall increasingly find ourselves in a more difficult position.

Mr. John Cartwright: I agree with the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) in his yearning for a simple system of rate support grant that we, local authorities and our constituents can understand. The hon. Gentleman graphically demonstrated that what may look perfectly all right in the safety of Marsham street produces some unfortunate results for a local authority that is trying to provide a reasonable level of services in an expanding area.
I wish to concentrate my remarks on the overall impact of the 1983–84 settlement. Paragraph 6 of the main report gives an impression of generosity. It refers to provisions for current spending being £1,500 million more than the 1982–83 settlement. It suggests that it is 3 per cent. More

than authorities' budgets in 1982–83. However, those figures are in cash terms only. They give no indication of what the cash will actually produce.
The Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service, in its report of 5 April 1982, referring to that procedure, said:
it is unlikely that a firm settling its cash budget for a year ahead, would be content to remain in ignorance of what it was going to be able to purchase with the cash it was budgeting for.
The Committee went on to say:
Cash spending has led to some important information about public expenditure no longer being presented to Parliament or the public.
In this instance, a misleading impression can be obtained from looking at the cash figures.
I am grateful to the Association of Metropolitan Authorities for presenting us with some alternative interpretations of what the 1983–84 settlement means. Looking at the current spending element—excluding the debt charge element—and comparing it with the 1982–83 settlement, it is an increase of 9·4 per cent. in pure cash terms. If we compare it with the 1982–83 settlement—allowing for pay rises of 5 per cent. and price rises of 7 per cent. both of which seem to be reasonable forecasts—in real terms it is an increase of 3·8 per cent. only. If we compare it with the local authorities' actual budgets for 1982–83—again allowing for 5 per cent. pay rises and 7 per cent. price rises—we find that it is a cut of 0·8 per cent. in real terms. It is important to underline that we are talking not about an increase but about a cut in real terms of almost 2 per cent.
In paragraph 10 of the report the Government say:
present economic circumstances require continuing restraint in the level of current expenditure by local Government.
That is a statement that we have heard frequently while the Government have been in power. I have never heard a convincing argument as to why that should be necessary. Many people and local authorities might take a contrary view. They might say that in the present economic circumstances increased spending is required in key areas. For example, if we are to get local industry moving forward, improved infrastructure schemes by local authorities can play an important part.
The Government have been appealing for more capital spending, housing construction and repair and improvement work. Anyone who has had the mixed blessing of being chairman of a local government finance committee knows that those capital schemes lead inevitably, as night follows day, to more revenue current spending in later years. The recession and unemployment have an indirect impact on local government spending. One has only to think of the extra pressure on social service departments by the casualties of the recession—family break-up and low incomes—to realise that spending increases as a result of economic difficulties.
Other hon. Members have pointed out that the effects of this settlement, after the settlements of the past couple of years, have resulted in a large proportion of the local government spending burden being transferred steadily from the central taxpayer to the local ratepayer. In this settlement the proportion of relevant spending to be met by Government grant is 52·8 per cent. That compares with 56 per cent. in the current year and 59·1 per cent. in the previous year.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) reminded us that, when we allow for the penalties that may be imposed in the 1983–84 settlement,


the actual proportion of relevant spending to be met by central Government grant might go down below 50 per cent. A cut of 9 per cent. in the proportion being met by central grant is a massive switch from central taxation to local rates over a short period.
Like the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), I want to see a reduction in local authorities' dependence on central Government grant. That is the only way in which local authorities will secure genuine independence. But it must be accompanied by a major new, locally controlled source of revenue for local authorities.
The Government's Green Paper was published long ago, but we have been waiting a long time for the Government to come forward with some ideas. Press leaks suggest that the Government will apparently reject all new forms of local authority revenue.
I believe that we shall have the worst of all possible worlds—steady cuts in grant and no new sources of revenue for local authorities. That will put a considerable strain on the already overstretched rating system and make local authorities even more the creatures of central Government control.
As other hon. Members have pointed out, the machinery for grant distribution is extremely complex. The original block grant system was created by the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, and the whole edifice of targets and penalties were created by the Local Government Finance Act 1982. It is complexity heaped upon complexity.
As I said previously, I and my party—the Social Democratic party—reject the whole absurdly complicated, unintelligible paraphernalia that Ministers have created to tie down local councils in a gigantic spider's web of central control. We have all had representations from organisations. I want to quote one that sums up the way that I feel about the complex system of grants and penalties. It says:
Any formula-based targets are bound to be unfair to individual authorities. Those which have already cut expenditure to the bone will be particularly hard pressed to make further cuts, whilst those with a higher level of commitments will face very difficult and painful decisions in seeking to reduce them.
Most importantly, the statement says:
Above all, no centrally assessed expenditure targets can possibly take account of all the variety of local circumstances which are at the heart of what local government is all about.
That statement comes not from a Labour, SDP, Liberal, or alliance source, but from the Conservative-controlled London Boroughs Association. It sums up adequately and fairly the objection that many of us have to this complicated system.
I was glad that the Secretary of State accepted that there were imperfections in the grant-related expenditure assessment system. It is not an exact science. A great deal of time and effort is spent on detailed negotiations. It is impossible to satisfy all the critics.
I want to give three examples of the deficiencies in grant-related expenditure assessment. First, in inner London there is a massive social services problem. Inner London has far more than its fair share of one-parent families, and it has a substantial number of elderly, isolated people who cannot depend on their families for care.
The AMA, referring to the GRE and the social services in London, said that they
woefully understate the spending needs of inner London boroughs no matter by what political party they are controlled.

The second example relates to concessionary fares for the elderly. In the 1982–83 settlements the GREAs for concessionary fares for the elderly in the shire counties were twice the amount that the shire counties were actually spending. Conversely, in London and the metropolitan counties the GREAs were well below the actual spending levels, because in many cases in the shire counties there were no bus services on which concessionary fares could be offered. That seems nonsensical, but I understand that the Government have not changed that grant-related expenditure assessment.
The third example relates to libraries. There is a statutory duty upon local authorities to provide reference services for anyone who needs them, and borrowing facilities for people living, working, or undergoing full-time education in their area. On that basis, the GREA should cover all those categories. In fact, only the daytime population is included for the GRE assessment. That implies that commuters do not need libraries in their home areas. It is an extraordinary concept that commuters will not borrow library books at the weekends. As the Secretary of State recognised, the impact of the penalties is extremely tough. He talked about a tough regime for enforcing expenditure guidance. We are entitled to ask how realistic the targets are. For a number of metropolitan authorities the targets are 1 per cent. less in cash terms than their current spending. That is a major cut in real terms when looking at the expenditure figures at which they have to aim. I am not arguing that savings are impossible. However, such massive cuts in a short period can be only achieved by appalling damage to the quality of services.
There are some very odd situations. The Inner London Education Authority, for example, says that to achieve its target would involve a cut of about £90 million on present spending, allowing for pay and price rises. Its officers are quoted as saying that this could be done only at the cost of widespread dislocation of the education service. Even if it cut its spending down to the target figure, it would apparently obtain no grant. To obtain grant, it would have to cut the current level by about £200 million. Clearly, there is no incentive to get anywhere near the expenditure target.
At the earliest stages of overspending, penalties are considerably less this year. The first 1 per cent. of overspending for instance, results in a loss to ratepayers of only 1p in the pound, compared with 3p in the pound under the previous arrangements. After the first 2 per cent. of overspending, however, the impact on the ratepayer is extremely heavy. For every £1 extra that is spent, the cost to the ratepayer is £1·60. That is a substantial burden.
On 16 December the previous Secretary of State said that he was
increasing the grant pressure on the high spenders."—[Official Report, 16 December 1982; Vol. 34, c. 488.]
It seems to me, however, that the pressure is falling not on the high-spending councils but on the ratepayers who have to pick up the bill and who in some cases are caught in the cross-fire of this "High Noon" confrontation between a Tory Government and high-spending Labour councils.
It is becoming obvious that some Labour authorities are determined to make a difficult situation a great deal worse. They are determined to continue spending on schemes which, on any judgment, are low priorities in a difficult situation. In the London area, there is a spate of "keeping up with the comrades". If one borough decides to give


away what it describes as "free" newspapers, paid for by the ratepayers, the rest have to join in. If one borough decides to appoint a police adviser or a women's adviser, all the rest have to follow suit.
My local authority in Greenwich is already in the penalty area, but this week it is advertising for a police adviser and a women's adviser, each with a salary scale rising to more than £13,700. By the time that one has added superannuation, national insurance, secretarial costs, accommodation and the rest, the spending on those two posts will be about £50,000. This is at a time when the council says that it cannot afford to sweep the streets properly, to mend pavements and footpaths or to put entry phones into vandalised council estates. That kind of spending by councils simply undermines public faith in local government.
The settlement before us flows from the welter of legislation seeking to control local authority spending and it is profoundly dangerous to local democracy. Centrally imposed targets calculated on complex formulae cannot replace local judgment on spending needs and priorities without the whole basis of local government being called into question. The imposition of severe penalties makes local authorities less accountable for their actions because it confuses responsibility as between local councils and central Government and permits the use of the sterile argument, "It is not our fault. It is central Government's fault." The resulting massive rate increases prevent local communities from making a sensible judgment on the cost of a service and the benefits that it brings.
In 1976, the Layfield committee predicted creeping central control by default if no action was taken to give local government more control over its own sources of finance. That prediction comes true with every piece of legislation or rate support grant settlement by the Government that chips away at the fabric of local autonomy. For those reasons, we shall oppose the motion.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I join my hon. Friends in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on his well-deserved promotion.
I greatly appreciate the opportunity to contribute to the debate. Many of my hon. Friends from Sussex would also have wished to do so, but we realise that hon. Members from other parts of the country wish to make representations, too. Certainly all my hon. Friends from West Sussex and many from East Sussex are deeply concerned at the effect of the rate support grant formula. It has undoubtedly had serious effects on finances and, regrettably, it has also led to a strong feeling of injustice. We had hoped not only for a fairer system but for a more intelligible system.
Some years ago, I led a deputation of West Sussex councillors and officials to see the Labour Secretary of State for the Environment. I think that the only person who understood the formula—at any rate outside the then Government, who may also have had one person who understood it—was the treasurer of West Sussex county council who acted as an adviser to the Association of County Councils. We all hoped that following our representations then and subsequently the new

Government would bring in a scheme that would certainly be fair and, if not intelligible to the layman, well understood by those who had to implement it.
The Government have not succeeded in that aim. I do not suppose that we could ever have anything too simple. If the various needs of different authorities are to be properly weighed, there is bound to be some kind of mathematical formula. I am concerned, however, at the effect of the formula on the fair-minded and intelligent people who have to implement it. I shall not rehearse the general argument so ably stated by my hon. Friends, especially my hon. Friends the Members for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) and Buckingham (Mr. Benyon). They feel that the grant operates against the prudent and encourages the profligate.
I draw on the experience and views of two authorities—West Sussex county council and Wealden district council in whose area almost all my constituency is located—not because I expect the Minister to reply in detail today but in the hope that he will at least make it clear that he understands why they feel as they do and then, at a later date, explain to them in writing why he believes that the Government's policies are right or how he believes that they could be modified to meet these entirely justified complaints.
Both authorities have been given spending targets substantially below the Government's own assessment of how much they need to spend to provide a level of service that meets official standards. Both will lose all their grant next year and become entirely self-financing if they exceed the Government's assessment of needs.
The Government's measures for calculating individual targets seem particularly unjust to those counties because in the past they have behaved prudently, yet they are to be treated less generously than other councils under the new provisions for 1983–84.
Let me tell my hon. Friend about the Wealden district council, because one must argue from facts. In the current year it was set a volume target of about £3·9 million and a GREA of £5·2 million. Its budgeted expenditure for the year was £3·85 million, and that budgeted expenditure has complied with both the volume targets and the GREA. The Wealden district council would not have been penalised unless both had been exceeded. However, with the exemption from penalties when GREA is not exceeded having been withdrawn, the council is limited to 104 per cent. of the 1982–83 budget.
This year the council acted reasonably and complied with all the Government's wishes, even though it could have spent over £1 million more than it did without incurring penalties. Had it chosen to do so, its 1983–84 target would have been increased accordingly. It is little wonder that this generates the impression that all one gets for achieving economies and restricting desirable services is a lower target for the next year, regardless of the overall expenditure, and the inevitable result will be to discourage rather than encourage the restraint of public expenditure, to which we all subscribe. The way in which the council put it to me was far more emotional. I can sum up its attitude by saying that it feels that it is being kicked in the guts, and I believe that it is right to feel that way.
I shall say a word about West Sussex. Its feeling of injustice is heightened when it compares its target with those of other counties. West Sussex is next to the bottom of the list of targets, but although those at the top have to make some stiff decisions next year if they want to avoid


penalties, it seems that they have had consolidated into their targets the bulk of their extravagant spending decisions in previous years. The county thinks it particularly galling—who can blame it?—when, although it is at the bottom of the list, when there is only one other shire county in the country where the population is growing faster than that of West Sussex, when its school numbers are falling less rapidly than those in other counties, and when the numbers of its old people continue to grow, it finds that its cash target for the coming year ignores those differences in the way its needs are changing compared with other authorities. That is how West Sussex sees the situation.
West Sussex compares itself with what it believes is a comparable Labour shire county in terms of population. The comparable Labour shire county spends about £5·4 million on services for the elderly. It has 69,000 people over 65 years of age, 27,700 of them over 75. West Sussex spends rather more than £5·4 million on elderly people. It spends £6·2 million, but the elderly population over 65 is not 69,000; it is 139,400. Compared with the 27,700 over the age of 75 in the Labour shire county, it has 60,400. If West Sussex were to spend a similar amount per head of its elderly population as the other county, it would increase its spending on this item alone by about £5 million.

Mr. Peter Hordern: My hon. Friend talks about the difficulties that occur in our part of west Sussex because of the expansion of Gatwick airport. He rightly said that we are one of the few parts of the country where the population is increasing rapidly. I think I am right in saying that last year the population increased by about 16,000. We were told in a debate on the Adjournment, held after the announcement of the second terminal at Gatwick, that all would be well for the county council because it would have extra rates deriving from the airport. We discovered subsequently that every extra penny available from the rates from Gatwick airport is to be taken back on the rate support grant. So the county council will be no better off as a result of a decision which was made not by the county council but entirely by the Government. Our county council will have to pay for this nationally based expansion, although it represents people who clearly are not in as good a position to pay these extra rates as many other parts of the country are. Should it, by chance, wish to improve its position by carrying out capital sales, I understand that from this April it will be able to spend only half the proceeds of the capital expenditure. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that those are tough terms.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I agree wholeheartedly with what my hon. Friend has said. It applies to a wider area than the one that he represents and is one of the reasons why we looked with profound misgivings at the report that was produced at the Gatwick inquiry, and were even more shattered by the reaction of the Government. However, the decision has been taken. All that we can do is our best to ensure that the bill is properly met by the Government and that we are not forced into penury by the extra load and responsibility forced upon us.
I shall give one other example that accounts for the feelings in Sussex. The latest notification of block grant gives shire counties 45 per cent of their total expenditure.
The figure for west Sussex is 32·6 per cent. If west Sussex were to receive the shire county average, our grant would increase by £22 million.
I know that other hon. Members wish to take part in the debate. I do not want to draw my comments to a sweeping conclusion. I have already shown where my feelings lie. I share wholeheartedly the suspicions of my colleagues. By all means, the Government should try to explain what they are doing. It is probably a better policy than some of us think, but many people will need convincing tonight or later in writing. People like that do not react and criticise policy unless there is substance behind the criticism.

Mr. W. E. Garrett: One of the features of the debate so far is the virtually universal hostility to the Government's policies on local government financing. There has not been one word of praise from the Opposition or from Conservative Members. The debate is taking place in an atmosphere of hostility, suspicion and resentment. There is resentment among almost all the local authorities against the Government's local government policies. There is resentment among the electors against the local councillors. There is resentment among the local councillors against the officials. That feeling exists throughout local government.
Many of us started our political careers in local government. Some of us did quite a lot of yeoman service in it before we came to the House. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, when I was in local government, I played a part as chairman of a finance committee and in other roles. I could understand the formula that assessed the grant from the Government. It was a block grant, which was simple and worked. We could explain it to the electors and the ratepayers, but it has now become impossible to understand. I trace that back to two things. One is the reorganisation of local government, which created a bureaucracy in local government, and the second is that throughout the United Kingdom we reduced the number of elected members to local authorities. The reduction in elected members meant more power for executives. In turn, executives have appointed around them a collection of people who are superbrains.
We heard a dissertation from my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) on an algebraic equation. It was an algebraic formula. It was a hybrid combination. What its substance was I do not know. I am sure that the Minister will take on board the fact that, although my right hon. Friend did not make a plea, he should have made a plea for a simplification of the formula so that the Minister can understand it and so that those of us who are ordinary humble Back Benchers can understand it. If we can do that, we shall he well on the way to reasserting our control over the machine.
This is a sombre day for me, because 2,000 redundancies have been announced at British Shipbuilders, of which 1,000 are in and around my constituency. As a result, people in local government in that part of Tyneside will be feeling very sorry about the situation. There will be a reduction in rates in the region, and that will mean more and more problems in financing existing services.
It is difficult to explain to people in other parts of the country what it is like to live in, or represent, a local


government area where there are huge pockets of unemployment, but it is becoming easier to understand as more and more people are becoming unemployed.
A gross injustice in our rating system is that it is possible to live in an area and to get the benefits of a lower rating system without meeting one's obligation to help those who live in areas where, because of early industrialisation, an equitable rating system cannot be worked.
I know that efforts have been made to deal with this problem, and I pay tribute to the work done on inner city development by various Ministers. That has now got off the ground. It has some warts, but the inner city areas are now gaining resources. We are all paying, either as taxpayers or ratepayers, into areas where the worst excesses of the industrial revolution are being overcome. The Government took the initiative, and I commend them for what they have done up to now. The Minister, who is a frequent visitor to the north-east, must have seen the results of some of the efforts that have been made. We hope that the nation will continue to support these efforts to regenerate our inner cities.
Reference was made earlier to the fact that cuts are taking place in education. Among the school closures is a Church of England first school in the Gosforth area of my constituency. The proposal is to close this school in five years time because of a fall in the birth rate. In fact, the birth rate has gone up, as have school attendances. That school will be closed because the authority does not have the educational finance and resources to ensure that it remains open. That is the very opposite of Tory philosophy on education. Conservatives often say that there should be a choice in education. If the Church of England school closes, the choice of having that first influence of religion upon five to nine-year-olds will be lost. There will be no alternative but for those children to practise their basic religious concept at a school that does not have an emphasis on the established Church in the United Kingdom.
We are proud of the fact that in the northern region a metro system is operating on Tyneside very efficiently. It operates in an exceptionally smooth manner, and we receive grants from central Government towards the operation of the transport system. We hope there will not be any major cutback on this principle. I assure the Minister that we do not divert the funds from transport to anywhere else. Every penny that we receive is put into the transport system. We do not manage the books by taking money and not using it for the purposes for which it was originally intended.
There are anomalies. I live in the rural constituency of Hexham, which is represented by a Conservative Member. It is a desirable area in which to live. In a way, the people in that area are enjoying the benefits of a transport system that has been paid for by the ratepayers of Tyne and Wear. It seems odd that I should benefit by paying lower rates, because in reality people in the rural areas should be paying more rates to pay for the transport system which many of them use, either for work, shopping, meeting friends or going to the theatre.
What I am about to say will probably be resented in our agriculture areas, but the time is long overdue for a reconsideration of the rating exemption of certain agriculture properties. We all understand that this was

introduced in the 1920s to help stop the collapse of British agriculture, but that scheme has never been seriously amended, even though successive Governments and commissions have looked at it. Agriculture is now in a better financial position than it has been for a considerable time, and the support systems that now operate will ensure that it remains efficient and viable. As a result, it should pay a greater contribution towards environmental services. I doubt whether this will be looked at in the lifetime of the present Government, but a future Government should have a close look at this matter.
Other special rate support grants should be given to the industrial areas. We should look as quickly as possible at ways of regenerating some of our older council properties. There is a strong case for giving local authorities grants to improve those houses. In some areas, thousands of council houses remain empty and boarded up, while thousands of people are on the waiting list. We could do much if a scheme such as I have suggested was established on a permanent basis. I am not suggesting that we should overstretch our resources, but the Government should have a look at this so that more houses, some of which were built in the post-war period, can be modernised.
By doing that we would create work and provide craftsmen with jobs. We could even recruit apprentices, for which at present there is a desperate need. Above all, we would give happiness to many people who could then enjoy one of the pleasures in life—that of going home at night and putting one's feet up in comfortable surroundings. The Government should extend the cash available for this purpose in the rate support grant.
I hope that the Minister will take all that I have said on board. I do not expect a detailed reply tonight. If this debate has done anything, I hope that it has highlighted the fact that all of us are fed up with the present rate support system. Someone must take a grip on this matter and come forward with a simplified alternative formula.

Mr. Churchill: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his elevation to the position of Secretary of State. It is a richly deserved promotion. I hope that in the months ahead he will look again at the current system by which the rate support grant is calculated.
I cannot conceal the grave concern of my constituents and the ratepayers of Trafford as a whole at the consequences of this year's rate support grant. Of 36 metropolitan districts, only five face any reduction at all. Trafford's cut is by far the greatest. While many local authorities have been profligate with the money of ratepayers and taxpayers alike, Conservative-controlled Trafford has been scrupulous in following every injunction of the Government. While high spenders such as Sheffield, which flies the red flag over the town hall, get a 10 per cent. increase this year in spite of excessive expenditure, Trafford, on the contrary, is rewarded with a 13 per cent. cut. Last year Trafford was faced with absorbing a cut of £2 million in its rate support grant. Now a further £3,125,000 is being cut. If the settlement stands, it will impose a heavy and wholly unjustified burden on the industrial and domestic ratepayers of Trafford—an increase equivalent to at least three times the current rate of inflation. This is grossly unfair.
Trafford's councillors have fought a valiant battle, on which they are to be congratulated, over many years on behalf of local ratepayers, giving them the lowest rate


poundage of any of the 10 metropolitan districts of Greater Manchester. I find it difficult to believe that it is the wish of the Government to punish those who have been their most loyal supporters over the years. If that were to be the case, they would be directly undermining the very policies that they seek to see implemented nation-wide. It is this that leads me to conclude that there has been a major error in the calculation of this year's allocation of grant for Trafford or, alternatively, that there is a basic fault in the formula itself.
A major element in Trafford's cut relates to education. My right hon. Friend's Department tells us that between the spring of 1981 and the spring of 1982 there has been a drop in primary school numbers 20 per cent. greater than the national average and in secondary school numbers 100 per cent. greater than the national average. I hope that these figures will be re-examined because they appear suspect.
In speaking up for the ratepayers of Trafford I am not seeking—nor are they—any special deal or preferential treatment. All we are asking for is a fair deal and justice. I look to my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw), who is to reply to the debate, to provide a reassurance that this is what the Government are determined to achieve.
Nor is this a one-off situation where we have done badly in one year alone. This has been part of a relentless and continuing adverse trend ever since Trafford was established. Since 1975–76 when in current prices Trafford received £46·6 million in rate support grant, the grant has dropped by 55 per cent. to the present figure of £21·4 million this year, imposing a heavy and ever-increasing burden on Trafford's ratepayers in spite of major economies of costs and, indeed, of services, to the point where they are close to being below an acceptable level.
It would appear that Trafford suffers through being labelled a high resource area because of the Trafford park industrial estate, which remains to this day the largest industrial estate in western Europe. I must ask my right hon. Friend why high resource areas in London are protected in some measure by being given a lower multiplier in the calculation of their rate support grant. Why should these special arrangements for high resource areas be confined to London alone? Why should they not be extended to local authorities in similar situations elsewhere?
The effect of the Government's policy of driving relentlessly towards rate poundage equalisation on a national basis is to penalise local authorities which are good housekeepers and which seek to safeguard the interests of their ratepayers and to reward the big spenders on the principle, "Unto them that hath, unto them shall be given." One might add the rider, "From them that hath not shall be taken away even such little as they have." That is the situation that confronts the ratepayers of Trafford today. That is not an acceptable policy. It should be looked at again with the greatest urgency.
If the Government persist in rewarding those who defy their injunctions by spending as if there were no tomorrow, while punishing those who support them by implementing economies, they will ensure the defeat of the central element of their policy towards local authorities, which is to get local government expenditure under control. This cannot be what the Government intend. I appeal to the Government on behalf of my constituents and the

ratepayers of Trafford, to look again at the means by which they seek to reach the important objective that all Members on the Government Benches wholeheartedly share.

Mr. Nicholas Lyell: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in what is becoming almost an annual ritual—the rate support grant debate—when one reviews how one has ended up after a year of battling with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's Department. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment. He takes immense care when one goes to discuss detailed constituency and county problems with him. Like all my colleagues, I welcome his appointment as Secretary of State.
I wish to speak briefly about Hertfordshire, with an eye not so much to the past year as to the coming year. If one does not get one's oar in early on rate support grant matters, it is not that there is an unwillingness to correct the position, but the computer takes over and it is impossible to rejig the whole system. It has been a tight squeeze during the past year. I should like to express my thanks for what we are pleased with and also hope not to be churlish by mentioning the problems that I trust will be corrected in the coming year.
We are thankful, in particular, for the softening of the edges of the penalty area. This year, Hertfordshire is likely to go into the penalty zone by a small amount. This will make it possible for our education budget not to be cut in the drastic way that earlier in the year had appeared necessary. It will be well known to my right hon. Friend and his junior Ministers that Hertfordshire has a high standard of education that we cherish and that we, as a Conservative-controlled authority almost throughout the past 20 years are determined to maintain.
As a result of the softening of the edges, it will no longer be necessary to make the cuts of £6 million that were anticipated and feared. Indeed, the cuts will probably be little over half that amount. The fears for crossing patrols, the reduction of welfare helpers, the cutting out of in-service training, the reduction of primary school staffs and the further reduction in maintenance allowance no longer exist. I am glad to say that, although it is not possible to increase those provisions much, they will not be reduced; that is something for which we are grateful, and which has come about as a result of the softening of the penalty zone boundaries.
It will also be possible—this is most important in a county with many schools with flat roofs—to increase the maintenance available for those schools and to improve the buildings somewhat. That is welcome. Also very important in a county with a population that is becoming increasingly elderly, there will be an extra £250,000, at least, available for domiciliary help and community care, something that is important to the interest that I take on behalf of my constituents.
I move now from the kinder remarks to the problems that we have experienced this year, and from which we hope my hon. Friend the Minister and those in the Department of the Environment will be able to help protect us in the coming year. Hertfordshire, like Trafford, is not fairly treated. It has had a continuing loss of grant over many years. It is a county and its budget is bigger, so its loss of grant is bigger than that of Trafford.
However, when I say that the loss of grant is £9 million this year and that last year it was £10 million, and that the


ratepayers of Hertfordshire pay a higher percentage of their income than ratepayers of any other shire county than Surrey you will realise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as will my right hon. Friends, that those in the shire counties around London, the home counties, are not getting a fair deal.
Hertfordshire has received among the lowest grant-related expenditure settlements in England and Wales, and is 2 per cent.—a significant amount of money—below average. The reason for this demands careful scrutiny, and is closely connected with higher education and, in particular, with part-time students. This may seem somewhat esoteric, but the simple fact is that under the overall system the number of students for whom one receives grant-related expenditure allowance is based on an average per head of population. If, like Hertfordshire, one educates substantially more people part-time than do other counties, one spends much more money but gets nothing in return. This is worth £3 million or £4 million a year to Hertfordshire and that needs to be corrected. I cannot believe it is beyond the wit of man or computer to do so.
There is also an improper estimate of interest received. I spell this out carefully because it is not easy for those who are recording it to pick up. The system assumes that all local authorities receive some money by way of interest. That is true of district councils that collect in cash from ratepayers. They receive much by way of interest.
However, county councils do not. This assumption of interest rates in the case of Hertfordshire assumes that we receive £3 million in interest that we do not receive. There is an assumption in this somewhat artificial but necessarily complex system that we are receiving £6 million or £7 million that we do not receive and for which, if we spent, we should incur penalty.
Another of the detailed problems concerns the high rateable values that apply in the home counties. These bear not only on our loss of grant but on the amount that each ratepayer has to pay. As I have already said, this is as high as anywhere in the nation except Surrey.
Dacorum district council, as the Hemel Hempstead area is known, suffers the anomaly of receiving less in grant and grant-related expenditure assessment this year than it otherwise would have done because it budgeted below target last year. That must be an anomaly. All hon. Members have been brought up on the end of the year "Let's buy a new typewriter" syndrome to spend money which has not been spent under our allowance. I had always hoped that a Conservative Government and local authority would overcome that tempation. I hope that the system will be changed so that next year there will be a benefit rather than a disbenefit from such an underspending. It is not beyond the wit of man or the Secretary of State to achieve that happy result.
Let me end on a more combative note. I have made one or two criticisms, but I make them from the standpoint that it is essential to keep local authority expenditure under tight control. It is rather galling to see Labour Members teasing us about imperfections in a necessary system when they have been grotesquely overspending in their districts regardless of the pockets of either their private or their business ratepayers. To some extent it is necessary for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to run a rough and a tough system. On the whole, after two or three years, it is beginning to be run comparatively well. However, like

others of my hon. Friends, I have highlighted several anomalies which must be cleared up if the system's credibility is to be maintained. I hope that my remarks, and those of my hon. Friend, will be carefully heeded.

Mr. Keith Stainton: I am delighted to have caught your eye, Mr Speaker, first because it gives me the opportunity to congratulate the Secretary of State on his new appointment, and, secondly, because it is a chance for a voice to be heard from a different part of the country—East Anglia, and Suffolk in particular.
Two themes or chords that have emerged from the debate can be labelled "unfairness" and "obscurity"—unfairness between those who are prudent and those who are profligate; obscurity in the sheer lack of comprehension. I challenge anybody, other than the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State, to assert with hand on heart that he knows how all this works. Recently, I and other local Members of Parliament had a briefing from the Suffolk county council. We found ourselves in dispute—including the chairman, the treasurer and the chairman of the transport committee—and we are still circulating memoranda to clarify several points.
I accept that £11·8 billion must be subject to strict control, but it becomes self-defeating—I say this with the utmost respect to the Secretary of State—when at the end of the day the elected representative—be he a Member of Parliament, county councillor, or district councillor—cannot with confidence stand on a platform and explain how the calculations have been made and what is the justice in the matter.
I do not intend to rehearse all the arguments that underlie my comments; I shall merely concentrate on one or two points. Suffolk falls into the bracket known as the low spending group of shire counties. The 1983–84 expenditure figures in terms of pound per head to avoid penalty are £307·37 for Suffolk, £294·32 for East Sussex, and £280·62 for West Sussex. One discovers Cleveland at the top of the list with £392·18. That does not represent a sudden reversal of trends. I have been receiving such tables from my county council for several years. They all portray a similar situation.
In this context, I shall define East Anglia as Cambridgeshire, Norfolk and Suffolk. If local authorities in the East Anglian region spent at the levels suggested by the Government—I measure my words carefully and may have to retrace my steps somewhat—as being appropriate to provide a standard level of service—that is their grant-related expenditure assessment—they would be penalised by about £20 million. On average, they would have to raise rates by around 17 per cent. Throughout the country, the lowest spending authorities will be penalised most heavily.
If I say that I want to challenge the Minister on grant-related expenditure, I hope that he will not take my words too literally. However, I suspect that the concept of grant-related expenditure may be going out of the window. We need some clarification. We have heard various comments about the imperfections of grant-related expenditure. However, we were groping towards some rational objectivity in the level and quality of services. Although in the past two financial years authorities that had targets that were below the grant-related expenditure were


exempted from the holdback penalties, that system is to be abandoned in 1983–84. That is distressing. I wonder whether the Government really consider grant-related expenditure to be a meaningful or misleading description of an authority's need to spend. The implication to me is that GRE represents an irreducible minimum level of spending for the various services that combine to make the total. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will address some remarks to this important point.
I believe that I am in order in referring to the transport supplementary grant. It is mentioned in a schedule to the report. Although the total accepted expenditure for England is increased by 12·5 per cent., the Government's share of it through transport supplementary grant is less than in 1982–83 by nearly £7 million. That is very different from the overall grant settlement for council operations. That is 1·5 per cent. in cash terms, or about 7·5 per cent. in value. What is more important for my constituents' interests is the support accruing to the shire counties, which is 17·8 per cent. less in cash terms this coming year than in 1982–83.
In Suffolk, part of which I represent, the county's total accepted expenditure has increased by 9 per cent., against a national average of 12·5 per cent. and a shire county average of 11·35 per cent. Suffolk's share of the transport supplementary grant has decreased by 38 per cent., as compared with 1·5 per cent. nationally and 17·8 per cent. for the shire counties generally.
That reduction derives from two causes—the national reduction in TSG generally and another, more obscure, but pertinent factor which is at work—the threshold poundage level. That expression is obscure and one may well ask what on earth it means. There are two or three paragraphs in the report relating to it, but I hesitate to recite them here or now. The increase in the TPL that one year of 21·28 per cent. is completely disproportionate. I should require stern and strong argument to disabuse me of that belief.
We have not so far discussed capital expenditure approvals, although reference has been made to the use of capital disposal receipts. The use of only 50 per cent. of capital disposal receipts will be an important factor for tightly budgeted counties to consider. I say quite forthrightly that for the past two years in Suffolk we have been "fiddling the books" with our capital expenditure receipts and the consequent movement of balances. If 50 per cent. of the utilisation of those capital receipts is to be denied to us, as I understand will be the case, that is a bleak projection for 1984–85. With great caution and wise management, we shall just about be all right for 1983–84.
I am anxious that capital expenditure approvals should hang together with the rest of the debate. We have been given guides for highways through the transport supplementary grants, but, significantly, we have had no indicators for social services. The latest note that I have received from the Suffolk county council also says:
The documents for Education and for 'Other Services' are not yet to hand.

Mr. King: I wish to respond to the very important point that my hon. Friend made about capital and capital receipts. He will be aware that that is what, in our judgment, the country can afford. It is necessary to take into account all the sources of income, including capital receipts, and local government capital receipts are very important. The reason we made the change this year is that an assessment of what we could afford was reserved for

local government and was denied to other sectors of the economy, whether inner cities or other programmes, to which both my hon. Friend and others attach importance throughout public expenditure. That assessment is lying unused by local authorities within local government. That is why we made the change about the 50 per cent. rule. I said then that that change need not inconvenience any local authorities that had specific proposals. A letter has been issued to local authorities saying that we shall try to meet any claims. If my hon. Friend has difficulties in that matter, I hope that he will let me know.

Mr. Stainton: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention, although I riposte that we have been going through a cycle of capital disposals that is rapidly diminishing, so perhaps the significance of the point should be reassessed. The 50 per cent. penalty on smaller receipts must be carefully assessed.
On another topic, the youth training scheme is to be a cornerstone of the Government's policies on unemployment. My county is in complete obscurity, both as regards a role as a mode A management agent, and as to its contribution to mode B schemes and to providing off-the-job training to management agents and the financial implications for a rural area. Of course, this is a matter for the Department of Employment and the Manpower Services Commission, but I caution my right hon. Friend about it, because a related point is to be underlined. My council tells me that it is having great difficulty in making up its mind on what it will do about secondary school intakes in September 1983.
As I understand the situation we are not statutorily required to provide secondary education for every child above the minimum school leaving age who presents himself or herself. If that is indeed the case, and if the tight penalties that are now being imposed on a low-spending county bring us to that point, we shall have dug a deep grave not only for ourselves but for countless fellow citizens in Britain.
The hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) made several interesting comments. He mentioned, rather naughtily, what he described as the hostility, suspicion and resentment coming from the Government side of the Chamber. Those three adjectives are entirely misplaced and utterly misconceived. The correct word from this side of the House is "concerned".

Mr. Gordon Oakes: I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) and hon. Members on both sides of the House in sincerely and warmly congratulating the Secretary of State on his appointment. I first met the right hon. Gentleman when I was Under-Secretary of State for Energy and he was the Opposition spokesman on energy. He was a formidable opponent. I and most Members were surprised in 1979 and thereafter when the Secretary of State was not made a member of the Cabinet, in either his present job or a similar job. I am glad that that omission has been rectified. I cannot wish the right hon. Gentleman a long tenure of office. I hope that he will be dealing with the rate support grant next year from this side of the House.
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman warmly because he has had a baptism of fire. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) said, none of the speeches, on either side of the House, gave unqualified


support to the Government. They differed in their intensity of disappointment about either the obscurity or the injustice of this order, to use the words of the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton).
The Secretary of State has antagonised not just hon. Members and the metropolitan counties by this rate support grant, but the shire counties and the district councils that are Conservative controlled. Opposition to the order comes not merely from us.
First, I should like to refer to the level of the settlement to which reference was rightly made by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), who, like me, deplored the decision to reduce the percentage of settlement to 52·8 per cent. from 56·1 per cent. The Association of District Councils, a Conservative-controlled organisation, in its letter to me and to other hon. Members of 14 January, said:
The cut in the level Aggregate Exchequer Assistance from 56·1 per cent. to 52·8 per cent. represents another significant shift in the burden of paying for local services from the taxpayer to the ratepayer. This is not altogether unwelcome in terms of the Association's view on enhancing local accountability; however, in the immediate context it does place upward pressure on rate levies.
So when the Government are baring their hearts to ratepayers and saying how dreadful are the rates they pay, let those ratepayers be well aware that this reduction in the settlement to 52·8 per cent. bears a considerable proportion of the blame.
The same district councils, in point No. 10 of the letter, state:
More generally there will be a wide variation in the scale of rate rises implied by the Settlement even if councils spend at target. Sixty-nine districts will be faced with increases in rates of 10 per cent. or more for spending at target and a further 82 with increases of 5 per cent. or over … This is somewhat at odds with the Secretary of State's"—
the former Secretary of State—
statement that 'as a result of this Settlement rate increases next year should for most authorities be nil or in low single figures.'
The present Secretary of State said this afternoon that he considered that rate rises would be "surprisingly low". That is not the view of the Conservative-controlled Association of District Councils. Those rate rises stem from the lowering of the percentage of the aggregate amount of the settlement itself.
Another point that I should like to raise and which has been touched on by other hon. Members concerns the GREs and the population changes and the effects of being able to use the 1981 census returns. When I was a Minister at the Department of the Environment, a continual criticism—a fair criticism from local authorities—was that much of the information on which the rate support grant was based was totally out of date. It varied from being a year or two out of date to being 10 years out of date. That seriously prejudices an authority, particularly a growing authority, as the Secretary of State himself pointed out. My authority of Cheshire, with two new towns, is a growing authority. People are going to that area and it is becoming more and more penalised by the lack of information.
This settlement ought therefore to be a good settlement because we have the more recent returns from the 1981 census. But that is not the case. The Association of County Councils makes that point clearly. I say again that it is not

a Labour-controlled association but a Conservative-controlled association of which I have the privilege to be an honorary vice-president. In point 12 of its document "The 1983–84 RSG Settlement—What it Means to Local Authorities" it states:
The Association is mystified and unhappy that, while its members' population is increasing faster than that of other classes of authority, its members' share of total GRE has declined—when GRE's are supposedly constructed from population-based measurements.
The Association can find no clear or simple relationship between data changes as a result of the 1981 Census and GRE changes, which lead it to doubt whether, despite assurances to the contrary, the proper impact of the new Census data has been reflected in the 1983–84 GREs.
I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will deal with this question, because it is of great importance to local authorities. We now have the data from 1981. Has it been properly used in arriving at the settlement? It is a fair point for the Association of County Councils to raise.
The third point that has been heavily emphasised is the ludicrous bedlam that has been created for the rate support grant. The 1980 Act created GREAs. They were not especially acceptable to local authorities, but their object was that central Government should decide the relevant spending needs of an authority. The more one introduces penalties and targets, the more one inevitably undermines GREAs. We wonder about the purpose of GREAs, other than as some trigger point to create penalties for the future. The whole grant system—like the whole of the Secretary of State's speech today—is dominated not by GREAs but by penalties, target ceilings and punishments resulting from the failure to implement targets set by the Secretary of State.
Let us be clear that the targets are set not by the local authorities, but by the Secretary of State. They do not relate to the GREA that the Secretary of State said was a fair level of spending. What lunacy are we about when we debate a rate support grant based on the false, fundamental premise that the GREA is different from the target? One has one or the other. The whole concept of targets introduced by the Secretary of State—as has been stated by many Conservative Members—is not the way to go about the rate support grant settlement.
I echo the words of the Association of District Councils, which said:
The Association remains opposed to the whole concept of individual targets and penalties and feels that the continued emphasis upon them foreshadows further damaging conflict in central—local financial relationships during 1983.
Those are the words of a Conservative-controlled local authority body.
Not one Member in the debate wholeheartedly supported the settlement. I know that when either party is in government there is always one Back Bencher concerned about the effect of a policy on his authority. But the criticisms went much deeper than that, as the Secretary of State will realise if he takes the trouble to read the Official Report tomorrow. Almost all speakers attacked not simply what was happening to a particular authority but the fundamental nature of the rate support grant. The hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge summed it up exactly. He said that it was a combination of obscurity and injustice. That is what most hon. Members feel.
All my hon. Friends who spoke in the debate represent inner city urban authorities. I echo what they said. High spending is not profligacy. It results from high needs. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr.
Eastham) made that point on behalf of Manchester, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend for Tyne and Wear and Newcastle, and my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) spoke vividly about the effect on the inner city. He brought the matter down to earth and made the point that we are talking in global figures. We refer to percentages and have computer-like printouts. He spoke about the effect on the elderly living in a certain authority.
As my hon. Friend rightly said, homelessness is a problem, especially in London, Manchester and Newcastle. One of the causes of homelessness is the high divorce rate. The wife often has the house. If she has children, that is well and good; I do not disagree with that. However, it often means that the husband is homeless. He goes to the inner city and becomes a vagrant. He is a burden on the social security department. That does not mean that Lambeth is deliberately, wilfully and maliciously spending money to attack the Conservative Government. It is because Lambeth has problems, just as Manchester, Newcastle and all urban areas have problems.
Liberal and SDP Members rightly oppose the motion. I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), who has served, and indeed still serves, in local government. Whatever Conservative Members may say, most councillors spend a great deal of time thinking about how they can effect economies. They do not sit in the council chamber wilfully trying to create expenditure. They are wondering how in God's name they can continue their services with the amount of money available and keep the rates down as well. That is true of all councils, whether Conservative or Labour controlled.
The proposals have also been criticised by Conservative Members. I have considerable sympathy with the points made by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Montgomery). The Under-Secretary of State must give an answer. The hon. Gentleman took the only course open to any hon. Member whose constituents are being done down when he said that unless he received a satisfactory reply he could not support the Government. In view of the explanation of rate support grant procedures given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ardwick, I remind the hon. Members for Altrincham and Sale and for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) of what happened in north Leicestershire and Knowsley. Even if the Minister says that there has been an error in relation to Trafford, once the Government's proposals are approved nothing whatever can he done about it. I regret to say, however, that I do not believe that it is an error. I believe that it results from the way in which the rate support grant is calculated under this crazy formula. Whatever the political control of Trafford, I am sure that Conservative councillors there know far more about its problems than do officials at the Department of the Environment. The root cause of the difficulty is that civil servants at the Department rather than local councillors are assessing the needs of the area. Therefore, whatever the Under-Secretary of State's reply, I urge both hon. Members either not to vote or to vote against the motion because if the proposals are approved they cannot be amended.
The mildest criticism came from the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire). I agree with him entirely that effective control is far more likely to come from the electorate than from the Department of the Environment.
The hon. Member for Tiverton also made a point echoed by many others, because the way in which the

Secretary of State has done this pleases nobody. The hon. Member for Tiverton, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Ardwick, pointed out that the settlement penalises low spending councils for being economical. Why on earth has the Secretary of State introduced a rate support grant that penalises authorities for being economical? It is the economics of madness.

Mr. Lyell: I accept the right hon. Gentleman's point about the anomaly of penalising local authorities which are seeking to be economical. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the corollary, that one ought to penalise those which are not being economical? To the extent that the report succeeds in doing that, it should have his support.

Mr. Oakes: I disagree with the hon. and learned Gentleman, because I disagree with the imposition of the criminal law on local authorities. I do not believe that civil servants at the Department of the Environment are competent to decide whether an authority is being economical. That is a decision for the ratepayers and voters.
The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) attacked the system and the targets as being unfair. It should be made clear to ratepayers in many of the areas that will be affected that rate increases may be due to penalties that result from the rate support grant settlement. The Secretary of State has not just reduced the aggregate amount, which puts up rates, but the penalties and the targets that he has fixed may cause ratepayers to pay considerably more.
The hon. Member for East Grinstead (Sir G. Johnson Smith) did not have a good word to say for the settlement. He used a phrase that most local authority councillors and treasurers might use, that they have been kicked in the guts. That is precisely what the Secretary of State has done to many authorities, both Labour and Tory controlled, by the incompetent way in which the rate support grant settlement does not do what the Secretary of State wants it to do.
The settlement is poor, and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ardwick said, it is probably the worst ever recorded because it could fall to less than 50 per cent. The figure of 52·8 per cent. is high and it could fall to less than that. Ratepayers will have to pay more. High-spending authorities, which are high spending through no fault of their own, find themselves in difficulty in providing much needed services. As my right hon. Friend said, low-spending authorities get kicked in the guts in gratitude for being economical.
I urge Conservative Members as well as Opposition Members to vote against the settlement in its entirety. Let the Secretary of State begin his career in his office, in which I wish him well, by creating a different, new and clearer formula which does justice to local authorities instead of working on the principle that the more local authorities are penalised the greater is the Government's prestige.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Giles Shaw): We have this annual joust, this "tip-toe through the tulips" of the rate support grant settlement, distributing blessings on either side but resulting in nothing but curses from both sides of the House. Nevertheless, we must proceed.
Many of the arguments raised on the rate support grant settlement are traditional and have been heard many times from the Opposition. "RSG" are the initials of "Really Sparkling Gerald", who each year gives of his best when dealing with this subject. This year he was a little lost and off song. GREA is "Gerald's rather engaging analysis" which occasionally results in problems for him. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) seemed to suggest that domestic rate relief should be increased. That would surely mean that an increasing proportion of the rates burden would fall upon commercial and industrial payers. The right hon. Gentleman would hardly want to argue for that when we desperately need to increase jobs.
The right hon. Member for Ardwick also suggested that the report should implement the urban programme exemption. I am sure that he would agree that that is not the case, because hold back for 1983–84 is not implemented by the report. That will happen when we have local authorities' budgets. There will be a supplementary report implementing hold back which will also implement the urban programme exemption. Those are matters that I may have misconstrued—or perhaps ones that he has misconstrued. The fact remains that the right hon. Gentleman felt the need of the traditional joust that he has enjoyed at the Dispatch Box for the past few years. Now he finds himself a Jane without her Tarzan—a somewhat plain Jane, a somewhat balding Jane, a somewhat overdressed Jane, but a welcome Jane, none the less.
Another consistent feature of these debates is the complexity of the GREA. The right hon. Gentleman, in his usual sparkling way, had great fun at its expense. However, I remind all hon. Members that an authority's GREA should in no way be regarded as the minimum level up to which it should spend. Of course they are constructed on formulae related to assessments of the costs of providing a standard level of service, but their primary function in the RSG system is as a means of distributing block grant between authorities. Authorities choose their own level of service, and all the authorities named are permitted the maximum 4 per cent. increase in spending. It is important for hon. Members to remember that.

Mr. Bowen Wells: Will my hon. Friend undertake that GREA should not be used as a means of keeping under control, or putting a maximum on, the expenditure of local authorities, because that denies local democracy?

Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend has got it wrong. That is not the function of the GREA, and it should not be interpreted as such.
I come to the assessment of needs. About 62 elements make up the GREA. My hon. Friend the Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) spoke about expanding populations. What is crucial is not simply an expanding population but the range of services that that population will need. If it is a young population, it will need schooling. If it is an older population, it will need provision for social services, and so on. The composite effect of the GREA is what is important.
Important matters were raised by my hon. Friends, and in the remaining minutes I shall do my best to answer them. My hon. Friends the Members for Altrincham and

Sale (Mr. Montgomery) and for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) spoke with extreme cogency about Trafford. I listened carefully to what they said, and I am grateful for the clarity and cogency with which they spoke. They could hardly have argued more effectively. When they brought their deputation from Trafford to see my right hon. Friend yesterday, they received a full and fair hearing. They would not expect me to go further than he did then. However, I shall repeat and place on the record the two important assurances that he gave. First, my right hon. Friend undertook to recheck carefully the numbers of school pupils used for calculating Trafford's GRE. If they are wrong, we shall take the earliest opportunity to correct them in the next supplementary report. Secondly, we shall look carefully at all the figures of students in non-advanced further education and the way in which they have been used to calculate the education GRE. My right hon. Friend undertook to look at both those matters carefully, and that will be done.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) spoke about the £904 million in the current expenditure provided for 1983–84 above the allocated amount. I can reassure him that the £904 million is real money. It is part of the relevant current expenditure, and it is part of the £20 billion, which is the total of authorities' targets. It is distributed among authorities as part of their targets, and it is not distributed between services. Therefore, it does not affect the GRE.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) raised the important question of the rate support grant settlement in inner city areas. I remind him that, in the settlement that we are discussing, 19 per cent. of the total grant for next year will go to urban authorities. That compares with 18·7 per cent. in 1982–83, and 18·6 per cent. in 1981–82. From that point of view, it is a significant improvement. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon), in a cogent speech, referred to his authority. There has been a substantial increase in population in his area. The county complains that a 4 per cent. increase in the 1982–83 budget does not recognise the substantial population growth. However, in 1982–83 the budget was adequate to provide services for the present population, so the 4 per cent. should not require unreasonable reductions in service level. If the county spends at target, block grant entitlement will increase by 4·5 per cent. and local contributions will decrease by 0·2 per cent. I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said, but some provisions are available even without great recourse to rate increases.
My hon. Friends the Members for East Grinstead (Sir G. Johnson Smith) and for Horsham and Crawley (Mr. Hordern) referred to the problems of west Sussex. I assure my hon. Friends that the needs for west Sussex, including any extra demands for local authority services arising from the development at Gatwick, will be reflected in the county's GREA. The object of the GREA is to enable all authorities, whatever their aggregate rateable value, to provide similar levels of service for similar rates in the pound. As the years pass, the Gatwick development will bear its fair share of GREA.
The hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) made an interesting speech. He referred to the review of agricultural exemption from rating, a point that has not often been raised in the House, and house improvements. I remind him that an extremely wide range of grant aids


are now available for house improvements. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction has been able to encourage local authorities to increase the range of improvements that are available for owner occupiers.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Lyell) referred to Hertfordshire and the Dacorum district. I understand the points that he made. It is necessary to keep all those matters under review. My hon. and learned Friend will recognise that in the settlement that we are proposing there is a genuine increase and improvement in the amount that the local authorities will spend during the next financial year.
The rate support grant settlement is always a matter of dispute. The right hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) referred to the views of the Association of County Councils. I assure him that the 1983–84 settlement takes into account the 1981 census information. I am sure that he will recognise, as I said when I referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge, that not the number but the range of services that the new population figures require is the main determinant.
The right hon. Gentleman suggested that everyone was attacking the rate support grant and that there had been not much discussion of fundamental principles in the debate. That was because it is inevitable that individual Members on both sides of the House will look essentially at the local picture. As the right hon. Gentleman will recognise, it is the job of Government to look at the national picture. Inevitably that makes the debate disparate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge referred to the transport supplementary grant. I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and ask him to examine the matter with care. I understand how important it is to a substantial rural area such as the one my hon. Friend represents.
The rate support grant settlement is fair and realistic. We increased the provision for local government's current expenditure to £19·7 billion so that we could set realistic expenditure targets for authorities next year. By publishing our targets in July last year, we have given local authorities much more notice of what is required of them for the next year. We have not sought to reduce those targets in the face of falling inflation rates.
My right hon. Friend made it clear how vital it is for the Government to address themselves to local authority expenditure. It is just not possible for Governments to hang back and to allow local authority expenditure to remain unchecked.
Many hon. Members have said that the method adopted is not the fairest and certainly not the clearest. The method attempts to relate the expenditure to an assessment of need that is far closer to being genuinely based than the previous system it replaced.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) was the only hon. Member who gallantly agreed that settlement was a significant improvement on its predecessor. I am grateful for the fact that I have one solitary supporting figure. My hon. Friend, as always, is a guide and mentor in matters affecting local authorities.
We have proposed a progressive system of grant holdback that is gentle on those authorities spending just above their target but severe and continuous on those authorities that continue to spend well in excess of target levels.
One of the severest criticisms of the previous methodology within the RSG was that there should be more positive attempts to claw back expenditure on those who over step the mark. My hon. Friends will surely welcome the improvement that has been made to that aspect of the settlement.
The overall effect of the settlement on ratepayers is that, in those authorities that meet their expenditure target, rate increases should be modest. Those authorities that wish to exceed their targets substantially will have to explain themselves to their ratepayers.
The early signs are that the news for ratepayers will be good. The rest is certainly up to local government. Whatever the Government might seek to do in making these assessments, the information is largely supplied by the individual local authorities themselves. That is where the information on which we base our calculations originates. Therefore, it is not just a matter of what the Government do. It is a matter of the way in which local government responds not only to the grant, and the system but also to the community requirements.
As the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) made clear, it is vitally important that local authorities should be able to deal with what they consider to be the priorities for local expenditure.
In the final analysis, the level of settlement of this grant must exclusively depend on the state of the economy at a given time and on the importance of relating that grant to public expenditure policy. Those who argue that any percentage reduction of grant is a mischievous and unmerciful, attack on local authorities are grossly overstating the position. Any other policy must seriously put at risk not only the Government's economic policy but also the ability of local authorities to benefit from such important things as the reduction of inflation and the improvement in the interest rate.
Those who argue that the consequence will be higher rate increases should recognise the drastic consequences for industry and employment that that would bring. That would cause another spiral not only of job losses but of pressure on inflation. Those who argue the unfairnesses of the system should recall that it is a first attempt to assess local needs to provide for a system where equal services for equal poundage might be available throughout 451 local authorities.
There is much talk about the loss of partnership between local and central government. The real partnership is the recognition that the ratepayer, taxpayer, councillor and Member of Parliament cannot contract out of their responsibilities to one another. I ask the House to approve the order.

Question put: —

The House divided: Ayes 272, Noes 224.

Division No. 49]
[9.58 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Benyon, W. (Buckingham)


Alexander, Richard
Berry, Hon Anthony


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Best, Keith


Ancram, Michael
Bevan, David Gilroy


Arnold, Tom
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Aspinwall, Jack
Biggs-Davison, Sir John


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)
Blackburn, John


Atkins, Robert (Preston N)
Blaker, Peter


Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)
Body, Richard


Baker, Kenneth (St.M'bone)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Banks, Robert
Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)


Bendall, Vivian
Bowden, Andrew






Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hill, James


Bright, Graham
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Brinton, Tim
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hooson, Tom


Brotherton, Michael
Hordern, Peter


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.
Irvine, Rt Hon Bryant Godman


Buck, Antony
Jessel, Toby


Budgen, Nick
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Bulmer, Esmond
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Butcher, John
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Butler, Hon Adam
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Kimball, Sir Marcus


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
King, Rt Hon Tom


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Knight, Mrs Jill


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Knox, David


Chapman, Sydney
Lamont, Norman


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Lang, Ian


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Latham, Michael


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Lawrence, Ivan


Clegg, Sir Walter
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Cockeram, Eric
Lee, John


Colvin, Michael
Le Marchant, Spencer


Cope, John
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Corrie, John
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Costain, Sir Albert
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Rutland)


Cranborne, Viscount
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)


Critchley, Julian
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Crouch, David
Loveridge, John


Dickens, Geoffrey
Luce, Richard


Dorrell, Stephen
Lyell, Nicholas


Dover, Denshore
McCrindle, Robert


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Macfarlane, Neil


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Durant, Tony
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Dykes, Hugh
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
McQuarrie, Albert


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Madel, David


Eggar, Tim
Major, John


Elliott, Sir William
Marland, Paul


Emery, Sir Peter
Marlow, Antony


Eyre, Reginald
Marten, Rt Hon Neil


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Mates, Michael


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Mather, Carol


Farr, John
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Mawby, Ray


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Mayhew, Patrick


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
Mellor, David


Fookes, Miss Janet
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Fox, Marcus
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Gardner, Sir Edward
Miscampbell, Norman


Glyn, Dr Alan
Moate, Roger


Grant, Sir Anthony
Moore, John


Gray, Rt Hon Hamish
Morgan, Geraint


Greenway, Harry
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Grieve, Percy
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Griffiths, E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)
Mudd, David


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Murphy, Christopher


Grist, Ian
Myles, David


Gummer, John Selwyn
Neale, Gerrard


Hamilton, Hon A.
Nelson, Anthony


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Neubert, Michael


Hampson, Dr Keith
Newton, Tony


Hannam,John
Onslow, Cranley


Haselhurst, Alan
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Hastings, Stephen
Osborn, John


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Hawksley, Warren
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Hayhoe, Barney
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Parris, Matthew


Heddle, John
Pattie, Geoffrey


Henderson, Barry
Pawsey, James


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Percival, Sir Ian





Peyton, Rt Hon John
Stevens, Martin


Pink, R. Bonner
Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)


Pollock, Alexander
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Porter, Barry
Stokes, John


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Stradling Thomas, J.


Prior, Rt Hon James
Tapsell, Peter


Proctor, K. Harvey
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Temple-Morris, Peter


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Rathbone, Tim
Thompson, Donald


Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Thornton, Malcolm


Renton, Tim
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Rhodes James, Robert
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Trippier, David


Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Trotter, Neville


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Rossi, Hugh
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Rost, Peter
Viggers, Peter


Royle, Sir Anthony
Waddington, David


Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.
Wakeham, John


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Waldegrave, Hon William


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Scott, Nicholas
Walker, B. (Perth)


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Waller, Gary


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Walters, Dennis


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Ward, John


Shepherd, Richard
Warren, Kenneth


Shersby, Michael
Watson, John


Silvester, Fred
Wells, Bowen


Sims, Roger
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Skeet, T. H. H.
Wheeler, John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Speed, Keith
Whitney, Raymond


Speller, Tony
Wickenden, Keith


Spence, John
Wilkinson, John


Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Williams, D. (Montgomery)


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Winterton, Nicholas


Sproat, Iain
Wolfson, Mark


Squire, Robin
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stainton, Keith



Stanbrook, Ivor
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stanley, John
Mr. Alastair Goodlad and


Steen, Anthony
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.


NOES


Abse, Leo
Cook, Robin F.


Adams, Allen
Cowans, Harry


Allaun, Frank
Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)


Alton, David
Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)


Anderson, Donald
Crowther, Stan


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cryer, Bob


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Ashton, Joe
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)


Atkinson, N. (H'gey,)
Dalyell, Tam


Bagier, Gordon A.T.
Davidson, Arthur


Beith, A. J.
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)


Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)
Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)


Bidwell, Sydney
Deakins, Eric


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Dewar, Donald


Bradley, Tom
Dixon, Donald


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Dobson, Frank


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Dormand, Jack


Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)
Douglas, Dick


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Dubs, Alfred


Buchan, Norman
Dunnett, Jack


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Eastham, Ken


Canavan, Dennis
Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)


Carmichael, Neil
Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)


Cartwright, John
English, Michael


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Ennals, Rt Hon David


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)


Cohen, Stanley
Evans, John (Newton)


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Faulds, Andrew


Conlan, Bernard
Field, Frank






Flannery, Martin
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Litherland, Robert


Ford, Ben
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Forrester, John
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Foster, Derek
Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)


Foulkes, George
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)
McElhone, Mrs Helen


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Freud, Clement
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
McKelvey, William


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


George, Bruce
Maclennan, Robert


Golding, John
McWilliam, John


Graham, Ted
Magee, Bryan


Grant, John (Islington C)
Marks, Kenneth


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hardy, Peter
Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)


Harman, Harriet (Peckham)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Maxton, John


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Haynes, Frank
Maynard, Miss Joan


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Meacher, Michael


Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)
Mikardo, Ian


Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Home Robertson, John
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Homewood, William
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Hooley, Frank
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Horam, John
Morton, George


Howell, Rt Hon D.
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Hoyle, Douglas
Newens, Stanley


Huckfield, Les
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
O'Neill, Martin


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Janner, Hon Greville
Palmer, Arthur


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Park, George


John, Brynmor
Parker, John


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Parry, Robert


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Pavitt, Laurie


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Penhaligon, David


Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)
Pitt, William Henry


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Kerr, Russell
Prescott, John


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Lambie, David
Race, Reg


Lamond, James
Radice, Giles


Leadbitter, Ted
Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)


Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)
Richardson, Jo





Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Robertson, George
Tilley, John


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Tinn, James


Rooker, J. W.
Torney, Tom


Roper, John
Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)


Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Wainwright, R. (Colne V)


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)


Rowlands, Ted
Warden, Gareth


Ryman, John
Watkins, David


Sandelson, Neville
Weetch, Ken


Sever, John
Wellbeloved, James


Sheerman, Barry
Welsh, Michael


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
White, Frank R.


Short, Mrs Renée
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)
Whitehead, Phillip


Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Whitlock, William


Silverman, Julius
Wigley, Dafydd


Skinner, Dennis
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)
Williams, Rt Hon A. (S'sea W)


Snape, Peter
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H. (H'ton)


Spearing, Nigel
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Spellar, John Francis (B'ham)
Winnick, David


Spriggs, Leslie
Woodall, Alec


Stallard, A. W.
Wright, Sheila


Steel, Rt Hon David
Young, David (Bolton E)


Stoddart, David



Stott, Roger
Tellers for the Noes:


Strang, Gavin
Mr. Ron Leighton and


Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Mr. Hugh McCartney.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Rate Support Grant Supplementary Report (England) 1982–83, which was laid before this House on 16th December, be approved. Resolved,
That the Rate Support Grant Report (England) 1983–84, which was laid before this House on 17th January, be approved.—[Mr. Cope.].

EUROPEAN LEGISLATION, &c.

Ordered,
That the Standing Order of 2nd July 1979 relating to the nomination of the Select Committee on European Legislation, &amp;c, be amended, by leaving out Mr. Tim Sainsbury and inserting Mr. Bowen Wells.—[Mr. Cope.]

Places of Religious Worship (Rating)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Cope.]

Mr. Jim Lester: The subject of the debate is rating policy towards places of religious worship. This subject has aroused wide interest and concern as evidenced by the many letters and approaches that I have received from Members of this House and the other place. Indeed, the attendance at this moment on the Floor of the House is by any standards exceptional for an Adjournment debate. If one glances in the Strangers Gallery it is also possible to argue that the number present there is exceptional for this time of night. It shows the degree of interest in this subject.
Every hon. Member who has promised in his constituency that he will approach me has done so. It is not possible for me to identify all of them by name. To read out all their names would take up the time allocated for debate. I have put down an early-day motion that asks my hon. Friend the Minister to take account of the views that I shall express. This will give my hon. Friends and colleagues who are unable to attend this debate the opportunity to sign the motion and therefore to identify themselves with what I wish to say.
I have sought to debate these events because the changes that have been proposed have occurred in my constituency. They affect the rating of two meeting halls of the Brethren. In view of the history, which I shall recount, this has become a matter of national connotation because the Brethren have some 300 meeting halls and could now be liable for rates of £1½ million. This evening I intend to go beyond this form of Christian worship, to show that, if the tests were applied more generally, they would have much wider consequences.
In 1983, this country is a multi-religious society that has gradually become, through the centuries, a tolerant one. We should all ensure that it should remain so. Two of the basic freedoms that all hon. Members hold dear are the freedom of speech and the freedom of worship. These freedoms are precious to our society and, if we err in any direction, we should err on the side of tolerance.
I shall now recount the history of what has happened. There are two meeting halls in my constituency, which were purpose-built. One was built on Hillside Road in 1967, and is just below where I live, and the other is on Cyprus Avenue and was built in 1971. These have been used for worship by the Brethren and until March 1979 they were regarded as exempt from rates under section 39 of the General Rate Act 1967.
The meeting halls are used for the solemnisation of matrimony, the service of breaking bread, scripture reading, preaching, prayer meetings on a Sunday, and other meetings of a similar nature on Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays. There is considerable activity in these halls and the number of members attending, depending on the type of service, varies from 300 to 36.
In March 1979 my local district council, Broxtowe district council, proposed the removal of exemption on these halls and instead decided that Hillside Road should be rated at the gross value of £1,474, rateable value £1,200 and the hall on Cyprus Avenue should be rated at £200, rateable value £40.
The Brethren naturally appealed against this to the local valuation court, which found in favour of them and that they should continue to be exempt as they had been since the halls were constructed. The council then chose to go to the Lands Tribunal on 25 March 1980 in support of its claim that the meeting halls were not places of public worship. The tribunal ruled "not without reluctance"—the words of the chairman—that it supported in narrow terms the council's case.
The trustees then appealed to the Court of Appeal, and many of us tried to expedite the case so that the matter could be cleared up. The final judgment came on 6 December 1982 when the Court of Appeal supported the Lands Tribunal. Only this morning, the final step failed and the trustees learnt that their appeal to the House of Lords was not accepted. That is the reason for the Adjournment debate.
The argument, the judgment and the debate all hinge on what constitutes a place of public worship. The general view for rating purposes, that has been applied and is widely discussed in the legal documents that I have here but, which, as I am not a lawyer, I shall not try to condense, has come to be known as the invitation test. "Public" means open to all, and this should be demonstrated either by physical means, such as a steeple or bells, or in the least instance a notice board that says "this is a place of public worship" and gives times of services.
Since the action began, the Brethren have put on all their meeting halls a notice that says
A Brethren's meeting room. Place of public religious worship, pursuant to the Registration Act of 1855 and the General Rate Act, 1967.
One cannot qualify that. It might need to be tested through the procedure that has just been gone through before we are sure that it satisfies the law. That shows how arbitrary such a definition is.
In 1983 we must consider whether the invitation test, as it has come to be known, is a proper basis for judging a place of public religious worship.

Mr. Peter Griffiths: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the real test of a place of worship is the activity that goes on there and the sincerity of its worshippers, rather than the architecture and the fittings?

Mr. Lester: My hon. Friend must be clairvoyant, because that is the point I am just about to make. The Brethren have argued what has come to be known as the "well disposed persons' test". They have assured me, and I think many other hon. Members, that no one who expresses a genuine interest is prevented from going to their services. They believe that people are attracted to their services and their religion by the form of witness by which they live their lives, not by notice boards, and because they preach and evangelise outside the church in market squares and the centres of our communities. They seek to lead people to their church by example—an essential tenet of their faith.
If we apply that test to the wider Christian worship we would more likely fall into that category than those who went and looked at a notice board to find out the time of a service. If we choose to go to a church in our constituency which may not be of our religious faith, we would almost certainly ring the vicar, the rector or a


member of the congregation and ask if we could go with him to his church. Certainly, that is what I would do, and that is much more the type of test that one would expect.
I can find no evidence that people have been prevented from attending the Brethren's services and I cannot see that the meeting halls are used for any other purpose than places of public worship. If the invitation test is to be the sole arbiter of places of public worship, it has a much wider significance than just for the Brethren because it has not been applied to the established Church—the Church of England.
I have in my hand an opinion from learned counsel which refers to the case of the governors of Shrewsbury school v Shrewsbury Corporation in 1960. The college chapel was found to be a place of public, not private, worship and therefore exempt from rates. Yet, one could not argue that that chapel in separate and distinct from the general buildings, nor that there is a notice which says at what time Shrewsbury school's chapel can be visited. However, one could argue that people are entitled to go to services there if they are parents, masters or their wives, or other people who are well-intentioned, who know the community and like to go to that chapel and its services.
One could also argue that if we were to look around in remote parts of the country we could find churches where notice boards have dropped off, where bells no longer ring and where the times of the services on the notice board bear no relation to the services held. At the most extreme, one could argue that a notice board could be put up and the church locked, preventing anyone from entering; and that is done for reasons which we understand.
One could go further. I also have evidence from a Mr. Bryan Wilson, a Fellow of All Souls, Oxford, a reader in sociology, who has been studying the question of religious sects for 30 years, especially the Brethren. On 14 September 1982 he wrote an interesting article in The Daily Telegraph entitled:
Let them pray; so long as they pay rates".
He has pointed out that, for entirely proper reasons, ultra-orthodox Jews do not invite the public to their synagogues. For fear of terrorist reprisals, they sensibly do not put up notice boards advertising the times of their services and so they would fail on the invitation test. Even the Zoastrians, who are Parsees, affirm that those who are not born Parsees and of their faith cannot become one of them. They would fail the invitation test although they are currently exempt from rates. Some Hindus are in exactly the same position.
Therefore, the question goes much wider than the ruling affecting the Brethren and their immediate rating prospects. As it is a wider question, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to review rating places of public worship in the light of recent events. He may well be able to follow Scots law. Scots law is often more sensible that English law. Indeed, I say that as a born and bred true Englishman. By section 21 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966, Scotland amended the previous legislation, dropping the word "public". For Scottish rating exemption, the phrase is "places of religious worship". The word "public" is not used. In this day and age, we should move in that direction, and I would welcome the Minister's assurance that he will at least consider that.
The matter is so important that I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to use his influence to freeze rating so that no council levies rates until his review is completed. I realise that he can only use his influence, because local authorities

are independent bodies. However, the House sets its face firmly against retrospective legislation, and it is unfair and arbitrary that some local authorities will pursue the question and levy rates on meeting halls while others will not. The question is so wide that it would be much wiser for the local authority associations and the Government to agree to look at the issue and not to levy rates until the review has been completed.
There will not be any financial hardship to councils. The amount that any council will receive from rating such premises is tiny, although the cumulative total of rates on this group is considerable. That is why I feel so deeply about the question of freedom to worship.
To sum up, I ask my hon. Friend to consider all that I have said, to remember how jealously the House guards freedom of worship and to consider taking a step in 1983 that does not go backwards from 1830, but that seeks to secure a future for freedom of worship for all sects in a multi-religious and still tolerant society.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Giles Shaw): I must congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Beeston (Mr. Lester) on the way in which he has skilfully deployed his case and timed it for the very day on which the legal process has been concluded. The debate is being held just as decisions have been reached in the other place. It is my duty to explain the background to the rating of such buildings.
Ever since rates were first introduced in the Poor Relief Act 1601, churches of the Church of England have not, in practice, been rated. That exemption was made statutory and extended to places of public religious worship belonging to other religious denominations by the Poor Rate Exemption Act 1833.
The relevant provisions of the 1833 Act were substantially re-enacted in the Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1955 and, subsequently, in the General Rate Act 1967. There is a fairly long, and in the case of the original Church, the Church of England, a very long history of exemption, and a long history in which public places of worship have enjoyed rate exemption. Section 39 of the General Rate Act 1967 provides that
places of public religious worship
together with any relevant ancillary buildings, which are either used by the Church of England or the Church in Wales or are registered under the Places of Worship Registration Act 1855, shall be exempt from rates.
Therefore, the criteria are straightforward in principle. Churches, chapels, mosques, temples and other buildings used for similar purposes are exempt from rates if they pass two tests. First, a relevant building must belong to the Church of England or the Church in Wales, or it must be registered as a place of worship under the Places of Worship Registration Act 1855. Secondly, it must be open for public religious worship.
The 1833 Act was passed at a time of special emphasis on the importance of religious toleration. I respect my hon. Friend's reference to the vital importance of that in our democracy. Since then, the provisions for rating exemption, which have stood the test of time remarkably well, have operated in a way wholly consistent with that spirit of tolerance. The provisions for the rating of places of religious worship apply even-handedly to all denominations and religions. But it is essential to the


operation of the rating system that any exemption from the liability for rates that arises from the beneficial occupation of land or property must be fully justified and clearly defined.
That consideration applies as well to the rating of places of religious worship as to other rate reliefs, for example, those relating to relief for premises used for charitable purposes or rate rebates for individuals. In each case there is a set of criteria, subject ultimately to interpretation by the courts, against which each case can be measured.
The ownership and registration of a building are questions of fact, but the interpretation of the word "public" has from time to time been tested in the courts. My hon. Friend referred to the existing case in relation to the Brethren. To understand why the qualification of "public" has been considered necessary in providing for relief from rates for places of religious worship, it is instructive to consider briefly the way in which the term has been interpreted in the courts.
The issue was considered in the case of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints v. Henning, a valuation officer, in 1964. It was known as the Mormon temple case. At that time the Mormon Church in the United Kingdom had 75 chapels, the services at which were open not only to members of the Church but to members of the public. As a result, all of the chapels were, and as far as I know still are, exempt from rates. However, in a judgment in another place, the Mormon Church's single temple, although registered under the Places of Worship Registration Act 1855, was deemed not to be a place of public religious worship. In essence, the decision was based on the fact that not only were the public excluded from the temple, but that access was restricted to certain Mormons of "good standing".
When delivering their opinions, Lord Morris of Borthy-Gest and Lord Pearce touched upon the importance of the qualification "public" in such matters. I wish to quote, very briefly, from the judgment. Lord Morris said:
I consider that there is a distinction between private or domestic or family worship on the one hand and public worship on the other. In my view the conception of public religious worship involves the coming together for corporate worship of a congregation or meeting or assembly of people, but I think that it further involves that the worship is in a place which is open to all properly disposed persons who wish to be present.
My hon. Friend referred to the interpretation of "properly disposed persons".
Lord Pearce concluded that he found it
impossible to hold that the words 'places of public religious worship' includes places which, though from the worshippers' point of view they were public as opposed to domestic, yet in the more ordinary sense were not public since the public was excluded.
He then suggested that
the question of how universal and indiscriminating must be the admission of the public,"—
was a question of fact—
and there may clearly be difficult questions whether some discrimination may be insufficient to deprive the worship of its public character.
In the case of the meeting halls of the Exclusive Brethren that my hon. Friend has outlined, it is clear that the halls were not private or domestic places of worship. But the Court of Appeal agreed with Lords Morris and Pearce that the meaning of the word "public" must go beyond such a narrow construction. They contended, broadly speaking, that there must be more than a

subjective willingness on the part of those in control of a place of worship to allow a properly disposed person to attend, and that there must be at least some outward sign that the public were either invited or permitted to participate.
Lord Justice Stephenson said:
A building on private property must somehow declare itself open to the public if activities which are carried on inside it are to be public, and the nature of those activities must be brought to the notice of the outside world if they are not to be private activities … Here there is neither any outward and visible sign that these halls are used for meeting for religious worship, nor any evidence of attendance at them by members of the public, except rarely by one or two.
In the judgment of the Court of Appeal, therefore, the meeting halls of the Exclusive Brethren did not meet the criteria of places of public worship; and, as my hon. Friend has said, petition for leave to appeal to another place has earlier today been refused.
That is the background to this case. What of the future? My hon. Friend has said that the Brethren are now advertising their meeting halls in a way which will perhaps satisfy the criteria in rating legislation. I am sure that that is a right course. The "public" test is an important one where rating relief or exemption is concerned, and it has stood the test of time very well for about 150 years. It is certainly open to the Exclusive Brethren at any time to furnish the local valuation officer with evidence that steps have been taken to advertise their meeting halls as open for public worship—as other religious denominations do—and to challenge any decision in the normal way.
Assuming that that is not a road that the Brethren would wish to tread, if the Brethren are unable or unwilling to regain their exemption in that way, they may be entitled to a mandatory 50 per cent. charitable relief from rates and possibly even for a further discretionary 50 per cent.—but this would be a matter for each local authority.
I hope that hon. Members will recognise some of the potential problems of removing the word "public" from the legislation. Indeed, I think it is important to bear in mind that where an individual, organisation or religious group steps, or finds itself stepping, outside any given criteria, it does not necessarily follow that those criteria should be changed.
Nevertheless, inasmuch as it is the function of the courts, through case law, to interpret criteria of the sort at issue here, in the light of the facts and the circumstances of each case, it is the responsibility of Parliament to ensure that statutes continue to operate in the way intended.
I am therefore grateful to my hon. Friend for raising such an important issue at this time. I can assure him that the Government will fully consider the implications of the decision in his constituents' case both for the Exclusive Brethren and for other religious organisations which may be affected by it.
In addition, I will look at the relevance and appropriateness of the Scottish position in the course of that consideration, although, as I think he will understand, there are certain statutory differences in the way in which the buildings in Scotland are related to their particular law. My hon. Friend has asked me a more pertinent and difficult question. He has asked that consideration of the consequences of the case be fully assessed before local authorities can take actions which they might seek to take in the light of the judgment which has been made.
It is not for me or for the Government to determine what local authorities may wish or seek to do—[Interruption.]


—a sudden and hurried slip of the tongue, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is, after all, a local authority that has made the decision around which the case has been worked, but it is certainly possible that I should consider what is the appropriate action in relation to the information we now have with regard to valuation officers. It may be that that is a route by which the information that we are gaining

through the review of where matters stand on this case will assist my hon. Friend and the cause that he has so eloquently deployed tonight.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes to Eleven o' clock.